Dabney v. Bed Bath & Beyond
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Scott v. Cayuga County Civil Service Commission (District Court, N.D. New York 2025)
- Borden v. The City of New York (District Court, E.D. New York 2025)
- BANKS v. ALAMANCE-BURLINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION (District Court, M.D. North Carolina 2025)
- Sapio v. Selux Corporation (District Court, N.D. New York 2024)
- Knight v. MTA- New York City Transit (District Court, E.D. New York 2024)
- Ramos v. Department of Homeless Services (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- Dodd v. My Sisters' Place, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- Stanley v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. 98 Starr Road Operating Co., LLC (District Court, D. Vermont 2023)
- Bourara v. The New York Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City, Inc., Employee Benefit Funds (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- Tenemille v. Town Of Ramapo (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- Hawkins v. New York State Office of Mental Health (District Court, S.D. New York 2019)
- Hamilton v. NYC Department of Education (District Court, S.D. New York 2019)
- Goonewardena v. New York Workers Compensation Board (District Court, S.D. New York 2017)
- Chuan Wang v. Palmisano (District Court, S.D. New York 2016)
- Charley v. Total Office Planning Services, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2016)
- Placide-Eugene v. Visiting Nurse Service (District Court, E.D. New York 2015)
- Geras v. Hempstead Union Free School District (District Court, E.D. New York 2015)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Terri R. Dabney, proceeding pro se, appeals frofti the judgment of the district court entered July 24, 2013 in favor of defendants Bed Bath & Beyond and Christmas Tree Shops (collectively “defendants”) dismissing her amended complaint alleging employment discrimination. By decision and order also filed July 24, 2013, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, with the view that “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter, of law.” Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003). On summary judgment, the court must consider “not whether ... the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented.” Anderson v.
Upon such review, we conclude that Dabney’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned order. Dabney v. Christmas Tree Shops, Bed Bath & Beyond, 958 F.Supp.2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). We have considered all of Dabney’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.