61 results for 'cat:"Discovery" AND cat:"Employment Discrimination"'.
[Consolidated.] J. Baker finds that Walmart must produce certain documents in a lawsuit brought by a former employee asserting wage-and-hour claims, as well as sexual harassment and discrimination claims. Information relating to Walmart employees' complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination are sensitive in nature and "their unfettered disclosure would be harmful," so they are ordered to be produced under a protective order. However, documents and information relating to pay records and work scheduled are not accorded the same protection, save for required redaction of personal identifying information.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Baker, Filed On: May 24, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1270, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, discovery, employment Discrimination
J. May finds that the deposition of an attorney who provided legal services to an opposing party was improperly prohibited in employment discrimination proceedings because the attorney had knowledge of legal actions brought by other employees that could be relevant to the case. Affirmed in part.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court, Judge: May, Filed On: May 17, 2024, Case #: 23-1115, Categories: discovery, Privilege, employment Discrimination
J. Rodriguez denies the city's motion for a protective order restricting the former commander from questioning witnesses about certain documents during upcoming depositions and excluding those documents from the commander's employment discrimination lawsuit. The documents, which include emails from city employees relating to various internal investigations, were sent to the former commander anonymously. The city has not established that these documents were ever in the city's possession or that they were illegally intercepted. Nor has the city provided any declarations to support assertions of attorney-client privilege.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: May 10, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv526, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: discovery, 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. Cole partially grants a former electronics salesman’s motion to compel his former employer, an electronics retailer, to produce a privilege log. The former electronic salesman claims his employer fired him over his disability and use of FMLA leave, and seeks documents that could corroborate his allegations of discrimination. The court instead asks the parties to confer “in good faith,” and reach a “negotiated result” over discovery within the next two weeks.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Cole, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv2639, NOS: Family and Medical Leave Act - Labor, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Wicks grants in part a motion to compel and orders a drywall and carpentry subcontractor to produce historical data listing the number of employees enrolled on its payroll between Jan. 1, 1994 to Jan. 3, 2017, which will help bolster a Black receptionist’s claim that she could have performed her duties in 20 hours as an accommodation for injuries that she suffered in a car accident. The court finds that the information requested is sufficiently targeted and will not pose an undue burden on her employer.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Wicks, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv4044, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Hummel orders New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation to produce requested documents in an employment discrimination lawsuit. The litigant seeks documentation regarding the demotion and subsequent promotion an environmental department officer who was the subject of a sexual harassment complaint. The litigant in this case alleges he was denied a promotion to be the director of law enforcement due to reverse racism, while the department argues the decision to deny him the position was in part based on his involvement in the officer’s promotion, which they claimed showed a lapse in judgment.
Court: USDC Northern District of New York, Judge: Hummel, Filed On: March 14, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv106, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Horan grants, in part, a former employee's motion to compel in his age discrimination action against Google. Google failed to comply with a previous court order requiring it to submit certain documents and testimony regarding directors within the Google Cloud organization, and must do so now.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Horan, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv2281, NOS: Labor/Management Relations - Labor, Categories: Communications, discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Jones grants a former employee’s motion for a protective order in this employment dispute brought against the city and its light department regarding religious discrimination. The employee alleges she was fired after her supervisor refused to accommodate religious exemption requests for the state’s Covid-19 vaccine requirement. The city then requested school records of the employee’s minor child, and she argues the records are beyond the scope of litigation and the minor child’s privacy should be protected. Therefore, the parties shall redact the child’s name and birthdate and use initials only. The court grants the city’s motion to compel for the former employee to answer each deficient interrogatory and request for production.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Jones, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv1668, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Privacy, discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Brailsford denies the city's motion for protective order and grants in part an employee's motion to compel the production of documents in an employment dispute. The employee alleges that she was fired after requesting accommodations of working from home while recovering from her long-haul Covid-19 symptoms. The city should produce a privilege log listing documents individually, " describing the document with sufficient particularly to show a privilege applies." The employee will be permitted to reopen certain dispositions and the city will bear the expense. There is no evidence that the employee willfully withheld a spreadsheet and emails.
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Brailsford, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv180, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Wicks denies in part a motion for a protective order filed in an employment discrimination complaint and directs the mortgage lender to provide documents that it describes as sensitive business information, including its gross-total volume in mortgage sales for its New York branch. The litigants, regional managers who claim they were discriminated against on the basis that they are Italian Americans, seek information related to the company’s decision to restructure, which led to their terminations. The lender fails to explicitly detail how disclosure of this information would harm the company.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Wicks, Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv542, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: discovery, Banking / Lending, employment Discrimination
J. Mendez-Miro grants the nonparties' motions to quash the employer's two subpoenas seeking testimony and documents related to the formation of the business the employee co-founded after she was terminated by the employer, allegedly because of her pregnancy. The employer's subpoenas do not include the text of two relevant rules as required under those rules, and the information they seek has not yet been sought from the employee herself, who could potentially provide it in a less burdensome way. The subpoenas issued to a bank also seek information beyond the employee's financial information and, therefore, are irrelevant.
Court: USDC Puerto Rico, Judge: Mendez-Miro, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv1167, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Starr grants, in part, a black former employee's motion to enforce deposition notice against his former employer. His request for a corporate representative is granted based, in part, on the need for one to testify about the facts underlying his termination.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Starr, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv230, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Borman denies an employee's request to produce copies of interviews or recordings that were taken by a law firm during a pre-lawsuit investigation into the employer, after which the employee filed a discrimination suit, because attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine preclude the firm from producing the information.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Judge: Borman, Filed On: January 23, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv11145, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: discovery, Privilege, employment Discrimination
J. Boyle denies a North Carolina justice department employee’s motion for reconsideration after the department was granted its partial motion to dismiss her discrimination allegations. Because the employee did not amend her complaint after, for instance, claiming she found post-dismissal evidence of the department’s retaliation, her arguments for reconsideration are misplaced.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Boyle, Filed On: January 10, 2024, Case #: 5:21cv371, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: discovery, employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Docherty grants the employer's motion to amend the scheduling order in a case brought by six employees alleging racial and disability discrimination and harassment, and partially grants its motion to compel production of previously requested material, allow continued depositions, permit third-party discovery and for an award of costs associated with late disclosures. The motion to compel is denied without prejudice as relating to communications with one employee prior to her retaining of representation, since acknowledging the existence of such communications would fall under Fifth Amendment privilege. Production of other requested materials is ordered. A motion for sanctions is granted since, if the employer is correct in stating that the employees intentionally concealed evidence, the employees have inexcusably sought to subvert the legal system.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Docherty, Filed On: December 18, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv1904, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Sanctions, discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Pham denies the plaintiff employee's motion for discovery sanctions in this lawsuit alleging sex discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII. The former employee seeks sanctions against the employer after surveillance video of an alleged incident with a coworker was not produced. Sanctions are not appropriate, however, because the defendant company had no duty to preserve the evidence at the time it allegedly erased the video pursuant to its video retention policy.
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Pham, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv2705, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Sanctions, discovery, employment Discrimination