7 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND cat:"Jury" AND cat:"Employment Discrimination"'.
J. Stranch finds the lower court properly required the employee to bifurcate her trial on liability and damages. Her failure to provide discovery documents and refusal to be deposed in the years leading up to the trial constituted a failure to prosecute that would have prejudiced FedEx if both issues were tried to the jury simultaneously. Meanwhile, the jury instructions, which split the ultimate question of whether the employee was the victim of intentional discrimination into two parts, did not prejudice the employee because the jury was not confused and did not struggle with any of the instructions when they reached a verdict. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Stranch, Filed On: May 22, 2024, Case #: 23-5466, Categories: Civil Procedure, jury, employment Discrimination
J. Silva denies the casino's motion for summary judgment on an employment discrimination claim filed by the intellectually disabled job applicant after the casino did not hire her. Though the casino had made a conditional offer pursuant to the applicant's completing job training through her advocacy group, the offer was retracted after the applicant exhibited limited communication skills. Though it is undisputed she had difficulty, because her job coach had previously told the casino the applicant could not perform in a particular position, certain facts remain in dispute.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Silva , Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv1516, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Health Care, jury, employment Discrimination
J. Estudillo denies the county a new trial for the Roads Division employees' lawsuit alleging that their supervisors and co-workers made anti-Latino remarks without reprimand. The county claims that the employees' attorney committed misconduct by having slides in a PowerPoint presentation that regarded dismissed claims, thus warranting a new trial. The several isolated examples of alleged attorney misconduct that the county cites, which occurred over the course of a lengthy trial, likely did not influence the jury's decision or prejudice them in a significant way. It is more likely that the jury simply believed the employees' witnesses more than the county's witnesses.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Estudillo, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv5411, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, jury, employment Discrimination
J. Hamilton finds that the lower court properly ruled for Costco on an employee's ADA claim that it remodeled the store in a way that made it impossible for her to continue in her position as Optical Manager given her difficulties walking and standing. While there was a clear error in the jury instructions, the error was not so prejudicial as to require a new trial in this case. Further, the court did not err in allowing both parties to introduce photographs of the workplace that had not been disclosed in discovery. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Hamilton, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 22-2067, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, jury, employment Discrimination
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. Woodcock denies an employee’s motion for a new trial and motion for equitable relief. There was no error in the juror selection process or the instruction of the jury, the evidence submitted to the jury sufficiently supported the jury’s verdict and there was no juror bias meriting a new trial. The verdict should not be overridden on the basis of a quantum meruit claim, because quantum meruit is meant to be ruled on by a jury. The employee failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to support her claim against her employer for unjust enrichment.
Court: USDC Maine, Judge: Woodcock, Filed On: July 18, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv12, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: employment, jury, employment Discrimination
J. Pryor finds that the district court improperly denied the employee's motion to alter a judgment awarding him $240,000 in lost wages in an action against the employer alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The motion arose after the jury found that the employer willfully violated the law, which would have resulted in a double damages award for the employee under the statute. The district court incorrectly ruled that the jury's finding on willfulness was merely advisory. The jury's finding was binding and should have been honored. Sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict on the employee's claim for discrimination, including evidence that the chief pilot expressed hostility towards military pilots including the employee. Reversed in part.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Pryor, Filed On: June 22, 2023, Case #: 22-11322, Categories: jury, employment Discrimination