740 results for 'cat:"Employment Discrimination" AND cat:"Employment Retaliation"'.
J. Marks finds in favor of the Department of Defense in a former teacher’s lawsuit claiming he was discriminated and retaliated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The teacher states the department retaliated by not transferring him to another air base school and for requesting him to produce more evidence of the disability. “Being asked to produce additional paperwork, even if the request was unreasonable, does not constitute ‘adverse employment action’ under the ADA.”
Court: USDC Middle District of Alabama, Judge: Marks, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv153, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Rosenthal denies, in part, summary judgment to the Department of Veterans Affairs on a former employees' discrimination action. There are questions of fact regarding the worker's claims for disability discrimination and accommodation following his first on-the-job injury, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Rosenthal, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv3805 , NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Biggs partially grants a health care system’s motion to dismiss allegations of age discrimination brought by a former system director of supply chain management after he claims he was passed up for promotions in favor of younger candidates. He also claims he was demoted at one point, then applied for his old position and was replaced. However, because the director did not file his discrimination claim with the EEOC within 180 days of it happening, the claim is time-barred. The director also argues equitable estoppel, meaning the system purposely caused him to miss a filing deadline because it withdrew the posting of his previous job prematurely, thereby violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. But, the director presents no evidence that the system removed the posting to deliberately or intentionally to prevent him from applying.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Biggs, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv847, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Messitte grants a gas station its motion to dismiss FMLA violations allegations brought by a former assistant manager when she claimed the station did not accommodate her after she was injured in a car accident. Along with the failure to accommodate, the manager claims that the station failed to reinstate her when she was physically unable to perform certain job duties, then fired her. However, FMLA does not protect her from the station’s actions. She is given leave to file a second amended complaint.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Messitte, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 8:23cv1482, NOS: Family and Medical Leave Act - Labor, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Matsumoto denies, in part, a motion to dismiss and allows a Guyanese transgender woman to bring two claims for sex-based hostile work environment and retaliation against her employer, a nursing home medical personal staffing agency. The court finds the sexual harassment she endured from her coworkers was both severe and pervasive meet the threshold for a hostile work environment claim. It further finds her post-termination email in which she complained of discrimination and harassment was considered a protected activity and allows her claim for retaliation to survive a motion to dismiss.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Matsumoto, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv4306, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Brady grants in part and denies in part an employer’s motion for summary judgment. An employee damaged a delivery truck while on the job and was subsequently terminated. The employee believes his firing was retaliatory, because he filed a complaint about being passed over for promotion to full-time employment when he was an on-call employee; he also claims he was subject to a hostile work environment because of the complaint. The employer is denied summary judgment on the employee's retaliation claim, as they did not indicate a non-retaliatory reason for his dismissal, but is granted summary judgment on his claims of hostile work environment and disparate treatment.
Court: USDC Northern District of Indiana, Judge: Brady, Filed On: September 5, 2023, Case #: 1:18cv82, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Moody grants a hospital’s motion for summary judgment in this matter of alleged sex discrimination and sexual harassment. A nurse who was the subject of multiple incidents of disciplinary action and was assigned to reorientation to improve his job performance, claimed the hospital terminated his employment because he had complained of discrimination and sexual harassment. Evidence is insufficient to support his claims, and it does show the cause for termination to be his unsatisfactory job performance.
Court: USDC Northern District of Indiana, Judge: Moody, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv37, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Dever partially grants a health care system's motion to dismiss race and age discrimination allegations brought by a former employee, who was a Black woman over 40 years old. The employee complained throughout her time working for the system of race discrimination. The system allegedly passed her over for a new position after they originally demoted her, then fired her. She argues the system didn't rehire her because of her demographics and filed a complaint with the EEOC for retaliation and age, race and color discrimination. However, her claims are time-barred because the system fired her longer than 180 days before she filed the EEOC complaint.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Dever, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv363, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Royal grants the city's motion to partially dismiss a civil rights and employment discrimination action brought by the employee. The employee, a Black woman, claimed she was discriminated against based on her race and unfairly fired. The employee's claims against the directors and Title VII disparate impact, hostile work environment and civil rights claims against the city are dismissed. The civil rights claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The employee failed to allege pervasive harassment existed which altered the conditions of her employment and failed to identify any city policy which had a significant adverse effect on a protected group. The employee's claims for Title VII disparate treatment race discrimination and retaliation may move forward.
Court: USDC Middle District of Georgia, Judge: Royal, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv82, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. McFarland grants the employer's motion for summary judgment, ruling the employee's second failed drug test gave it a legitimate reason to fire him, and because he has no evidence of an ulterior motive for the termination, the race discrimination and retaliation claims must be dismissed.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: McFarland, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 1:18cv486, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Daniel partially grants the Chicago Department of Animal Care and Control’s motion to dismiss employment discrimination and retaliation claims brought by one of its former employees. The former employee was sexually assaulted by one of her coworkers on the job, but said her supervisor was dismissive of her claims and convinced many other workers in the department to turn against her. She eventually quit but not before the Illinois Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued her a right to sue the department on multiple First Amendment, discrimination, whistleblower and retaliation claims. The court dismisses her State Officials and Employees Ethics Act claim in its entirety and part of her First Amendment claim as it relates to a specific HR complaint she made. Her other claims can proceed.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Daniel, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv6777, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment Discrimination, Assault, employment Retaliation
J. Eagan partially grants the defendant mortgage company's motion for summary judgment in this lawsuit brought by two former employees alleging discrimination and retaliation, as well as a hostile work environment. Specifically, the company is entitled to summary judgment on the retaliation claim asserted by one of the two employees, as she fails to provide evidence that she "engaged in any protected activity." The other employee, however, has shown that she was "opposing the alleged discrimination that she faced" when she initiated her complaint.
Court: USDC Northern District of Oklahoma , Judge: Eagan, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv302, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Rubin partially denies a municipality its motion to dismiss race discrimination allegations brought by a police communications officer, who is a Black man. The department fired the officer after he took a picture of a woman who entered the station where he worked and was behaving strangely. She threw chairs and then laid down on the floor. The officer sent the picture to others in the department through the Snapchat app, and the department fired him shortly thereafter. The officer cites differential treatment compared to his white coworkers who engaged in similar behavior. Although the officer’s claim of retaliation does not hold up because he admits he violated the department’s social media policy, his discrimination claim survives dismissal at this stage.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Rubin, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv2628, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Crenshaw grants summary judgment to the Department of Veterans Affairs and dismisses the former employee's claims for discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment. The former employee, a neurologist from Bangladesh, fails to establish a prima facie case of national origin discrimination. Also, his allegations fail to establish a hostile work environment claim.
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Crenshaw, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv107, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Health Care, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Magnuson grants the Department of Homeland Security's partial motion to dismiss the employee's gender and disability discrimination and retaliation claims related to the denial of her request to be transferred out of a position reviewing child pornography after a sexual assault by a coworker and her subsequent termination. The employee has not administratively exhausted her claims related to her termination, since they are not so closely related to her other claims as to constitute the same decision for the purposes of review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She also has not sufficiently alleged recent harassing conduct to support timely hostile-work-environment claims.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Magnuson, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv2185, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Dishman grants summary judgment to the defendant car dealer in this lawsuit brought by a former employee alleging race and gender discrimination, as well as retaliatory discharge. The car dealer provided "a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason" for the employee's termination, specifically related to certain car deals, which it claims were "in violation of company policy." Also, the evidence does not show that the decision was pretext for discrimination.
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: Dishman, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 5:20cv306, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Garnett grants partial summary judgment to CVS against the floater pharmacist's claim that CVS fired him for taking a screenshot of a patient's prescription, printing it out and bringing it home to consult with his wife, also a CVS pharmacist, about the correct amount and to discern the physician's handwriting. Firing him for copying a patient's prescription was not retaliation because that is a terminable offense on its own.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Garnett, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv7520, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Snow grants the defendant school district's motion for summary judgment in this lawsuit brought by a former employee alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, as well as interference with her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act. The former employee, who is African American, fails to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination or retaliation.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Oklahoma, Judge: Snow, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 6:21cv241, NOS: Education - Civil Rights, Categories: Education, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Boyle partially denies a municipality and its police chief their motion for summary judgment after a former sergeant filed multiple allegations including hostile work environment. When the sergeant, a woman, was still an officer, a fellow male officer allegedly flirted with her and insinuated he was her “gigolo” verbally and via text. She began to notice stuffed animals on her desk being arranged in lewd positions. After she confronted her coworker about it, the animals began to appear in murderous scenes with stuffing pulled out and “a red substance was applied to look like blood.” Her claims demonstrate a hostile work environment under Title VII.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Boyle, Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv31, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Osteen denies a former investment management specialist her motion to amend her complaint against Wells Fargo for alleged race, gender and age discrimination. The specialist, a Black woman who was 62 years old at the time, claims that after she complained of discrimination to Wells Fargo’s CEO, she was not chosen for a promotion even though she was qualified. She noted that every other employee already in this position was white and younger than her. She did not have to establish specific incidents of discrimination in her original complaint, but her amendment fails to add any precise details about her claims.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Osteen, Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv51, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
Per curiam, the Fifth Circuit finds the district court properly found in favor of Louisiana State University in this employment sex discrimination suit brought by the female staff attorneys who were terminated as part of a university-wide consolidation. The attorneys failed to identify male employees who were paid more for similar work. The attorneys were also notified of their termination before they filed charges, and there is no causal link between their alleged protected activity and the adverse employment action. Though, testimony on record regarding an email raising gender pay-equity concerns “seem[s] to corroborate... ’ [that a retaliation claim] was objectively reasonable.” This satisfies the attorneys’ burden to show that their salary-review request was a protected activity. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 22-30585, Categories: Education, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation