1,937 results for 'nos:"Employment - Civil Rights"'.
J. Cogburn grants the U.S. Postal Service’s motion to dismiss wrongful termination claims under Title VII brought by a former employee whom the service accused of theft. The employee denied the charge, but after an investigative interview, the service fired him. He was advised to sue the service federally within 90 days, but instead, he did so through state court 14 months later. Because he admitted the untimeliness of this, the service is granted dismissal.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Cogburn, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv747, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Government, Employment Retaliation
J. Chambers grants in part the in-home respiratory care provider’s motion for summary judgment in the former Huntington branch manager's retaliatory discharge suit. While there are disputed issues of material facts on her two claims of retaliatory discharge in violation of the West Virginia Patient Safety Act, the company, despite lying to state and federal regulators why they fired her, did not terminate her employment "in an atrocious, intolerable, or extreme way."
Court: USDC Southern District of West Virginia, Judge: Chambers , Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv109, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Health Care, 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. Howell grants the employer's motion for summary judgment in the employee's suit alleging failures to provide a computer with enlarged font after the surgical removal of her eye and to grant her adequate leave during the Covid-19 pandemic, along with a failure to promote her which she argues was discriminatory. The employee has not shown that the employer's stated reason for failure to promote her, namely a poor interview performance, was pretextual, nor that its reason for terminating her, namely repeated failures to provide medical documentation required for accommodations including leave, was pretextual. The employee's failure-to-accommodate claims also fail, since the employee has not alleged that, when told that the computer they provided was inadequate, her supervisors refused or failed to follow up on her objections or that it did not engage in a good-faith dialogue with the employee as to her leave requests.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Howell, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1507, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination
J. O'Hearn finds for an armored car company accused of firing a service technician for seeking accommodations for a brain tumor that caused him to fall asleep at work because the record indicates the technician was fired for violating the company's open-door and personal device policies during a robbery, and that the company had not exhibited a pattern of animus or antagonism prior to his termination.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: O'Hearn , Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv1028, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination
J. Rothstein dismisses the job applicant's complaint that the temp agency violated Washington law by not disclosing the wage scale or salary range of its job openings. The job applicant alleges a technical or procedural violation, which does not qualify as a concrete injury, and he must allege at least that he and others applied for the job with good faith intent and suffered risk of harm by that violation.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Rothstein, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1680, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment
J. Boasberg largely grants the employer and co-worker's motion for summary judgment in the employee's suit against them alleging that his hours were cut and he was terminated after objecting to discriminatory comments by the coworker. The employee has adequately pleaded that the employer's stated reason for a reduction of overtime opportunities was pretextual, but has not made that same showing for his other claims.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Boasberg, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv275, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Retaliation
J. Trauger grants the restaurant defendants' motion for summary judgment in this lawsuit brought by a former employee alleging age discrimination in connection with his termination. The former employee, who worked as a general manager, fails to show that his termination was due to his age. The defendants cited "his restaurant's culture, as evidenced by the complaints," and he does not establish that the reason was pretext for discrimination.
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Trauger, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv885, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Evidence, Employment Discrimination
J. Oliver grants FedEx's motion for summary judgment, ruling the employee's hostile work environment claims were filed outside the statute of limitations and, therefore, must be dismissed as untimely. Meanwhile, because the employee failed to cite any similarly situated employees as comparators for his age and race retaliation claims, those fail as a matter of law and the lawsuit will be dismissed in its entirety.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Oliver, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv1472, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, Employment, Employment Discrimination
J. Cooper partially grants the television network's motion to dismiss its former Capitol Hill producer's suit alleging that he was fired for opposing false reporting of voter fraud and inaccurate coverage of the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. The producer has not plausibly alleged that he was discriminated against because of his political affiliation, since a D.C. law barring such discrimination narrowly defines "political affiliation" as membership in or endorsement of a political party. He also has not alleged that he was terminated as a reprisal for political activity, nor cited an established policy that the network violated by firing him. While he purports that the network's stated reason for firing him, failing to show up to work when he called in sick, was pretextual, he has plausibly stated a claim of retaliation under the Sick Leave Act because of that stated reason for termination.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Cooper, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv3401, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Merchant dismisses a Middle Eastern employee’s retaliation claims against a Brooklyn health care provider, finding that filing complaint she made against her supervisor, for forcing her to work near an employee who tested positive for Covid-19, is not protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim. The court however preserves her discrimination claims, finding she provides enough detail to allege she faced differential treatment because of her national origin.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Merchant, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv3313, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Covid-19, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. O’Connor finds that an attorney who claims that she was not promoted because she is female did not show that her employer’s reason for not promoting her is pretextual. The attorney’s claims that the qualifications of person hired for the position were exaggerated do not meet the requirement for pretext to a discriminatory decision that any reasonable employer would find the protected class member’s qualifications are superior. However, the attorney’s claims for failure to promote based on her age can proceed. The employer’s motion to dismiss claims of discrimination based on sex are granted but the motion to dismiss based on age is denied.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: O’Connor, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv566, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Employment Discrimination
J. Flanagan grants an IT management company’s motion for summary judgment following allegations of race discrimination and wrongful termination brought by a former manager. The manager, a Black man originally from Haiti, argues that his white male supervisor did not promote him but promoted another white man, instead placing the manager in a newly created role instead. However, the supervisor correctly argues that the manager did not have the skill set for those positions, and the manager accepted the role offered. The manager also fails to present any evidence of race discrimination or sufficient evidence for wrongful termination after he resigned.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Flanagan, Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv345, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Estudillo amends the employee's judgment to $5,400 in economic damages for her complaint alleging that the supervisor and the city did not prove her promotional opportunities and fired her because of her gender. The supervisor and the city agree with the employee's contention that the parties stipulated to economic damages if the jury found liability for the retaliation claim, which they did.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Estudillo, Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: 3:19cv5002, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Employment, Damages
J. Flanagan grants a municipality’s motion to dismiss wrongful termination and gender and race discrimination allegations brought by a former parks and recreation director. The director, a Black woman, alleges that after a series of discussions and emails regarding her conduct, her supervisors became increasingly hostile and fired her without warning or explanation. She makes reference to several other employees’ actions that did not result in their termination, but the information she provides is too vague to proceed under a Title VII claim.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Flanagan, Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv630, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Woods grants the employer's motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination suit. The employee does not present sufficient evidence to support a claim she was fired for being a Black, female, Seventh-Day Adventist. Further, the negative comments she heard from supervisors were not connected to the employee's religion, race, or sex and were not objectively severe enough to support a hostile work environment claim.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Woods, Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv9554, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Employment
J. Van Meerveld grants summary judgment to the city of New Orleans, dismissing a Title VII racial discrimination suit by a fired white police sergeant who alleges he was disciplined more harshly than nine black officers for similar offenses. The sergeant’s eight social media posts clearly advocate unnecessary force and use terms historically used to demean black people, such as “animals,” and “savages," to describe Black Lives Matters protesters after the murder of George Floyd. The black officers cited were not comparators. The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the sergeant with back pay and emoluments on appeal.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Van Meerveld, Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv5060, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment Discrimination, Police Misconduct
J. Rice dismisses UPS's affirmative statute of limitations defense against the package car cover driver's complaint alleging that UPS's superiors assigned him to less desirable routes, overloaded him with work and tried to uncover unfavorable information about the driver because of his race. The statute of limitations for Washington Law Against Discrimination and related state law tort claims is three years, and the driver filed this lawsuit in October 2022 so his claims can only go as far back as October 2019, but the acts that happened before October 2018 involved the same people named in the driver's lawsuit. As such, the driver can introduce evidence of acts that happened before Oct. 18, 2018, to support his hostile work environment claim.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Washington, Judge: Rice, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv3149, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination