Stouter v. Smithtown Central School District

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Stouter v. Smithtown Central School District

Stouter v. Smithtown Central School District

Plaintiff:	Maura Olga Stouter
Defendant:	Smithtown Central School District
Case Number:	2:2007cv02707
Filed:	July 5, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
County:	Suffolk
Presiding Judge:	E. Thomas Boyle
Presiding Judge:	Sandra J. Feuerstein
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 12, 2010	Filing 33 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: For the reasons contained in the attached Memorandum Opinion & Order, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The following claims fail as a matter of law and are hereby dismissed: (1) plaintiff's Title VII claim for sexual orientation discrimination; (2) plaintiff's claims for gender discrimination based on disparate treatment pursuant to Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law; (3) plaintiff's claims for ag e discrimination pursuant to the ADEA and the New York Human Rights Law; (4) plaintiff's ADEA retaliation claim; and, (5) plaintiff's Title IX claim for gender discrimination. The remaining claims present genuine issues of material fact and will be tried to a jury, limited to those events that occurred in or after June 2005. SEE Memorandum Opinion & Order for further details. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 2/12/2010. (Minerva, Deanna)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 12, 2010

Filing 33 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: For the reasons contained in the attached Memorandum Opinion & Order, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The following claims fail as a matter of law and are hereby dismissed: (1) plaintiff's Title VII claim for sexual orientation discrimination; (2) plaintiff's claims for gender discrimination based on disparate treatment pursuant to Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law; (3) plaintiff's claims for ag e discrimination pursuant to the ADEA and the New York Human Rights Law; (4) plaintiff's ADEA retaliation claim; and, (5) plaintiff's Title IX claim for gender discrimination. The remaining claims present genuine issues of material fact and will be tried to a jury, limited to those events that occurred in or after June 2005. SEE Memorandum Opinion & Order for further details. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 2/12/2010. (Minerva, Deanna)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Stouter v. Smithtown Central School District
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Maura Olga Stouter
Represented By:	David George Gabor
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Smithtown Central School District
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?