8 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND cat:"Defamation" AND cat:"Employment Retaliation"'.
J. Rabner finds that the appellate division improperly held that a police officer violated the non-disparagement clause in her settlement with the township by stating in a television news interview that she had been abused for eight years and discussing allegedly retaliatory disciplinary charges because the non-disparagement clause would bar speech protected under state anti-discrimination laws, and thus was not enforceable. Further, "survivors of discrimination and harassment have the right to speak about their experiences in any number of ways, and they can no longer be restrained by confidentiality provisions in employment contracts or settlement agreements." Reversed in part.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Rabner , Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: A-2-23, Categories: employment, defamation, employment Retaliation
J. Brnovich rules a baking ingredients company may pursue defamation claims against a former employee. The baking ingredients company sufficiently showed in court that the former employee, a senior buyer, defamed the company by publishing false online information concerning its customers and its confidential business information.
Court: USDC Arizona, Judge: Brnovich, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv2674, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Trademark, defamation, employment Retaliation
J. Winkler finds the lower court erroneously denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the disability services board and its members. The CFO of the company who received waiver benefits from the board had no contract with the board, did not own the building he used in conjunction with the benefits waiver and used a personal vehicle for work, all of which rendered him an independent contractor, not an employee. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Winkler, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-83, Categories: Immunity, defamation, 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. Pallmeyer partially grants Naperville’s motion to dismiss a number of civil rights claims brought by one of its former police officers. The former cop says he was defamed and eventually fired in retaliation for questioning the legality of a Naperville police policy which required officers to make at least two traffic stops a day. Naperville says that because the former officer was still in his probationary period when he was fired, he was not due any notice or hearing beforehand. The court decides to dismiss the former cop’s supervisory liability and administrative review claims, but allows his defamation and due process claims to survive.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Pallmeyer, Filed On: August 22, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv6635, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, defamation, employment Retaliation
J. Ceresia finds that the lower court properly dismissed claims challenging the state human rights division's finding of "no probable cause" in a mid-level unit chief's claims that he was defamed when the state attorney general's office denied employee building-access records on the basis of endangering named workers. The chief portrayed the response as retaliation for employment discrimination claims he brought against his former employer, but the denial did not constituted an adverse employment action. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Ceresia, Filed On: June 22, 2023, Case #: 535962, Categories: defamation, employment Retaliation
Per curiam, the circuit finds that the district court properly dismissed employment discrimination and defamation claims brought after plaintiff was fired based on a video that went viral for its racial overtones. After a Central Park birdwatcher criticized plaintiff for walking her dog without a leash, she warned him that she would tell police an "African-American man was threatening [her] life"; indeed, her 911 call making this false claim was captured on video. Plaintiff contends she had been "characterized as a privileged white female...caught on video verbally abusing an African American male with no possible reason other than the color of his skin," but her employer had not mentioned plaintiff's race in a public statement addressing her termination. Meanwhile, claims contending her employer considered her a racist were not actionable since such constituted opinion. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: 22-2763-cv, Categories: defamation, employment Retaliation