Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. et al, No. 1:2011cv01360 - Document 93 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Re: 69 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 8/24/2012. (stas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division NOAH NATHAN, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:11-cv-1360 (AJT/TRJ) TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., era/., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION PlaintiffNoah Nathan ("Nathan") claims that because of his child-care duties, defendants Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Takeda") discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment, and also retaliated against him for complaining about his mistreatment, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e, et seq. This matter is before the Court on defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants defendants' motion. I. FACTS.1 Nathan began his employment with Takeda in 2002 and became a specialty sales representative in 2004, the position he held at the time that Takeda engaged in the allegedly illegal conduct. As a specialty sale representative, his job was to promote the sale of Takeda pharmaceuticals to health professionals. As a part of his duties, he was required to spend most of 1Unless otherwise indicated, the facts stated herein are either undisputed ordisputed facts viewed most favorably to Nathan and are taken primarily from (1) the joint statement of undisputed facts ("Stipulations"); (2) Takeda's statement of undisputed facts ("SUF"); and (3) Nathan's opposition statement of facts. The Court has noted those recited facts which Nathan has disputed without adequate support in the record.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
