Asserted Economic Retaliation Against Plaintiff Based on Plaintiff’s Rejection of the Defendant’s Sexual Advances Did Not Violate Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act* In an unpublished opinion, designated as "not precedential," the Third Circuit recently affirmed the District Court’s dismissal pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of antitrust claims that were predicated on a doctor’s asserted economic retaliation against a nurse after she rebuffed his sexual advances. Stark v. Ear Nose & Throat Specialists of Northwestern Penn., No. 05-2345, 2006 WL 1371571 (3rd Cir. May 19, 2006). The plaintiffs were Beata and Norman Stark ("Stark"), and Beata Clinical Research Services ("BCRS"), who provided administrative and contractual support services to drug manufacturers and
Share on
|
|
A US Court of Appeals rules that the District Court did not err in dismissing the antitrust claims based on an alleged economic retaliation against a nurse after she rebuffed his sexual advances (Stark / Ear Nose & Throat Specialists of Northwestern Penn)
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.
