Walker v. United Parcel Service General Services Co. et al
| Brandon Walker |
| United Parcel Service General Services Co. and United Parcel Services, Inc. |
| 6:2016cv06031 |
| January 20, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Western District of New York |
| Rochester Office |
| Monroe |
| Charles J. Siragusa |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| 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
28
DECISION AND ORDER granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 23 Motion to Strike 23 Cross MOTION to Strike 21 Response in Opposition to Motion, 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 19 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion , 22 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 20 Affirmation of Karen Sanders, 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Plaintiff has not shown that the proffered reason for his termination was false and the real reason for the adverse employment action was motivated by racial discrimination. Further, Plaintiff has failed to prove he was involved in a protected activity and that UPS terminated him in retaliation for it. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summ ary judgment, ECF No. 17, and denies Plaintiff's cross-motion to strike, ECF. 23. The Clerk will enter judgment for both defendants, and close the case.. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 12/12/17. (KAP)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
|
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 Western 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.
