Richard A. LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADIRONDACK BEVERAGE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
- Decided
- April 13, 1998
- Docket
- 1091, Docket 96-9301
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,525 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that dismissal is proper where allegations are the “product of delusion or fantasy” — Frein v. Feinstein (2021)
- finding that a claim is frivolous if it “is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” — Kevin James Walker Estate v. Wuchte (2022)
- explaining that dismissal is proper where complaint’s factual allegations are “the product of delusion or fantasy” (internal quotation marks omitted) — Uzamere v. Gregg (2026)
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
McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge:
BACKGROUND Richard Livingston, an individual of Hispanic descent, operated a soda bottle-capping machine for Bev-Pak, Inc. d/b/a Adirondack Beverage Company (“Adirondack”). He claims that during his tenure at Adirondack he was subjected to derogatory ethnic remarks that created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
Livingston contends that he first felt the sting of ethnic animus in 1991. While pouring soda down a drain, Livingston accidently splashed James Rufer, his shift supervisor. Rufer allegedly responded by striking Livingston with a soda bottle and calling him a “Spic.” Adirondack suspended Livingston without pay for his role in this altercation.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Richard A. LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADIRONDACK BEVERAGE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, 141 F.3d 434 (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.