729 results for 'cat:"Employment Discrimination" AND cat:"Employment Retaliation"'.
J. Vilardo allows plaintiff to continue certain pro se claims contending an employee faced a hostile work environment due to her race and had been suspended her without pay after she refused to undergo an evaluation. She also contends the employer failed to properly calculate her accrued vacation and forced her to work in dangerous conditions with mentally ill patients, but the claims against the employees and officers are duplicative of claims against the city, while many others are conclusory. Claims that refer to events that happened the day after she filed administrative charges should continue.
Court: USDC Western District of New York, Judge: Vilardo , Filed On: March 13, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv725, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Sargus grants the employer's motion for summary judgment, ruling the employee's poor performance gave it a legitimate reason to fire him, and because the poor performance began well before the employee alleged any discrimination related to his requests for time off for medical testing, the employee cannot establish a claim for disability discrimination or retaliation.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Sargus, Filed On: March 12, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv3752, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Williams grants the employer's motion for summary judgment, ruling there is no evidence to indicate the company considered the employee's request for Family and Medical Leave Act to provide care for her mother when it fired her for falsification of a patient document; therefore, the FMLA interference claim fails as a matter of law. Additionally, even though she was fired two weeks after she made her FMLA request, the retaliation claim also fails because the document falsification gave the employer a legitimate reason to fire the employee.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Williams, Filed On: March 12, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv469, NOS: Family and Medical Leave Act - Labor, Categories: 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. Donnelly dismisses an employment discrimination and retaliation complaint against Lockheed Martin, who was sued by a 53-year old Black administrative assistant on claims that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of her race, age and gender. The court finds she fails to allege Lockheed Martin’s decision not to select her for a promotion and to later fire her were not motivated by her race, age or gender or in retaliation for complaints she made regarding allegations of discrimination and unequal pay. As well, the court finds her claim for disparate pay under the Equal Pay Act lacks substantive detail.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Donnelly, Filed On: March 12, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv4115, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Daniel partially denies Veterans Affairs’ motion for summary judgment, and denies the suing VA pharmacy technician’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims. The pharmacy technician suffered an extensive nerve injury while on the job that left her with only limited use of her arms, hands and neck; she says the VA failed to accommodate her disability afterwards. She also claims to have faced disparaging remarks at work that created a hostile environment, and that the VA retaliated against her after she filed a separate equal employment opportunity charge when she was passed over for promotion. The court allows the technician’s retaliation and failure to accommodate claims stand without granting her judgment, and grants the VA judgment on her interference and discrimination claims.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Daniel, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv6216, NOS: Civil Rights - Habeas Corpus, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Hurd tosses a self-represented New York State Thruway employee’s discrimination and retaliation complaint, finding it fails to allege the agency’s decision to issue him several warnings for refusing to wear a mask around employees during the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to a negative performance review, was motivated by either discriminatory or retaliatory animus.
Court: USDC Northern District of New York, Judge: Hurd, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 6:22cv337, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: Covid-19, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Cooper denies, in part, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security's motion for summary judgment on a black, Muslim former equal rights advisor's employment discrimination action. There are questions of fact regarding his claims for retaliation and racial discrimination.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Cooper, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv780, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Browning finds in favor of the city in an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by a former employee who asserts claims for discrimination on the basis of race and a violation of her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The city did not discriminate or retaliate against the Black employee, as it provided a legitimate basis for her termination, specifically that she "ignored the express instructions of her supervisor" and "refused to cooperate with the HR Department."
Court: USDC Northern District of Oklahoma , Judge: Browning, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 4:21cv61, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Griggsby grants, in part, an employer, its member company and a labor union’s motion to dismiss this employment dispute brought by a, Black employee. The employee alleges he was refused a promotion because of his race and over the age of 40. His complaint is time-barred but there are sufficient facts to state a plausible claim against the union.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Griggsby, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1439, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation, Labor / Unions
J. Sacks upholds the denial of two court employees’ motion to dismiss claims brought against them by two court officers they worked with, who are suing them, their employer and their union, for race and gender discrimination, retaliation and other unlawful employment practices. The doctrine of present execution is not applicable to the two employees’ motion to dismiss. Affirmed.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Sacks, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 23-P-216, Categories: Employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Pallmeyer partially grants the defendant U.S. Veterans Affairs Department’s motion for summary judgment on a former employee’s race discrimination and Title VII retaliation claims. The former employee, a Black man, claims the VA fired him in retaliation for a heated argument he had with a white coworker that almost boiled over into a fight. However, the court found the VA also had reasonable cause to fire the employee due to lapses in attendance and work protocol. The court grants judgment to the VA on the former employee’s race discrimination claims, but withholds judgment on his Title VII retaliation claim pending a de novo review.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Pallmeyer, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 1:17cv9259, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Veterans, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Neals dismisses claims contending United Parcel Service fired a truck driver after he complained about repeated harassment and had denied transfer requests and other grievances. Many claims are preempted by UPS's supplemental agreement with the union, and other claims are time-barred; meanwhile, the complaint failed to plausibly allege hostile work environment, and the truck driver failed to respond to the assertion that the alleged harassment had not been severe or pervasive.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Neals , Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv11028, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Preemption, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation