Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- Decided
- May 18, 1998
- Docket
- 97-1026
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,797 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “bald assertions . . . that there are genuine issues of material fact are insufficient” to preclude summary judgment — Volking v. Airxcel, Inc. (2023)
- recognizing that a district court “has discretion to go beyond the referenced portions” of the record “but is not required to do so” — Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. v. Hooper (2024)
- recognizing that Congress intended courts to look to general agency principles when evaluating whether an em- ployer is responsible for sexual harassment by its employees — Goff v. BOKF, NA (2025)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Darla Adler appeals from summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant-Appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on her Title VII claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment and her state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Background Plaintiff began her employment at the Wal-Mart Distribution Center in Loveland, Colorado, on July 12, 1993. On October 30, 1993, she was assigned to a position in the battery room of the maintenance department. Much of the work in the Center was performed with forklifts, and Plaintiff’s duties in this position were to clean and [*669] change forklift batteries. In the fall of 1994, she was promoted to forklift mechanic.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 (1998)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.