United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.

How later courts describe this case

• holding that evidence offered by plaintiff "is not sufficiently probative that it would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude either that the alleged reason for his discharge was false, or that the true reason for his discharge was a discriminatory one"
• clear and unambiguous policy language shows no intent to limit pollution exclusion to environmental pollution
• fumes from waterproofing sealant on exterior of house were "pollutants" within meaning of pollution exclusion
• the plaintiff “must produce enough evidence to allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude” that the alleged reason for the adverse employment action was pretextual
• The plan’s requirement for timely premium payments were not waived by accepting partial payments or by previously accepting late payments.
• “A federal court also possesses the inherent power to regulate litigants’ behavior and to sanction a litigant for bad-faith conduct.”, citing and quoting from In re Heck’s Properties, Inc., 151 B.R. 739, 765 (S.D.W.Va.1992