Eichenholz v. Brink's Incorporated et al
| Elliott Eichenholz |
| Brink's Incorporated and Gordon Campbell |
| 1:2016cv11786 |
| September 1, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Norfolk |
| Leo T. Sorokin |
| Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
116
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered.For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Eichenholz has no basis to recover either monetary or equitable relief on his sole remaining claim for FMLA retaliation, based on the issuance of a PI P or the lowering of his 2015 performance review scores. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 86, is ALLOWED on Count I. A final judgment shall issue. re 86 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Brink's Incorporated, Gordon Campbell (Montes, Mariliz)
|
|
Filing
112
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered.Eichenholz's motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 84, is DENIED. The defendants' motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 86, is ALLOWED as to Counts II, IV, V, VIII, IX, X, and XI. The motion f or summary judgment is DENIED as to Count I on the theories that the defendants retaliated against Eichenholz for asserting his FMLA rights by issuing a performance improvement plan and by completing the 2015 performance review after he resigned; it is ALLOWED on Count I in all other respects. The defendant's motion to strike, Doc. No. 88, is DENIED without prejudice to renew as a motion in limine before trial. Eichenholz's motion to strike, Doc. No. 100, is DENIED.Eichenholz shall show cause within seven days that he can proceed with the FMLA retaliation claim in light of the Court's ruling by either identifying the damages recoverable under Count I, as defined by the Court in this Order, or explaining why such a claim is viable in the absence of any damages. Defendants may respond within seven days thereafter. Each memorandum is limited to seven pages.SO ORDERED. (Montes, Mariliz)
|
|
Filing
33
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered Defendant's 8 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendant's Second 13 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. (Montes, Mariliz)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
