Alvin PROMISEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIRST AMERICAN ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS, INC., Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• exercising supplemental jurisdiction where plaintiffs federal ADEA claim and state law claims were based on plaintiffs termination
• affirming exercise of pendent jurisdiction where state and federal claims rested on alleged age discrimination in plaintiffs firing
• applying plain language interpretation to phrase “accidental means” and noting that “this reading of the policy is not affected by the possibility that similar language might be construed differently under state law”
• “A federal court’s exercise of pendent jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims, while not automatic, is a favored and normal course of action.”
• plaintiffs state law age discrimination claim clearly derived from same nucleus of operative fact as his federal ADEA claim
• “The availability of pendent jurisdiction was codified in 1990 at 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).