1,138 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND cat:"Employment Retaliation"'.
J. Scarsi finds in favor of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation Pete Buttigieg for the Marine veteran’s retaliation claim, which alleges that the manager of the Santa Ana Systems Support Center terminated his probationary period because she allegedly did not understand that the veteran had to fly business class for a work trip because of an unforeseen complication. Buttigieg and the manager provide multiple pieces of evidence that the termination was justified because the veteran violated FAA rules and regulations multiple times, including returning from training in Oklahoma City via business class instead of economy class, not being forthcoming with the manager during the subsequent meeting, and performing unauthorized maintenance on the Santa Ana and Fullerton RTDS and the Fullerton airport Voice Recorder System.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Scarsi, Filed On: May 26, 2023, Case #: 8:19cv875, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, Government, employment Retaliation
J. Anderson denies the defendant college's motion to dismiss this Title VII discrimination lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its reply, the college challenges the complaint as to "the exhaustion of Plaintiff's discrimination claims before the EEOC." However, this is not a jurisdictional argument. Also, the court will allow the individual plaintiff an extension of time for service.
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Anderson, Filed On: May 26, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv2537, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Baker denies the board’s motion for summary judgment in a civil rights and retaliation action brought by the police captain alleging that he was fired due to his involvement in investigating sexual harassment complaints filed by three female officers against the former chief of the Savannah State University Police Department. The captain sufficiently shows that he was engaged in protected activity when he actively opposed the alleged harassment. He also points to sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between the protected activity and his termination, as well as evidence that the proffered reason for his termination was pretextual.
Court: USDC Southern District of Georgia, Judge: Baker, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv148, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, 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. Baker denies the board's motion for summary judgment in a civil rights and retaliation action brought by the police lieutenant alleging that he was fired due to his involvement in investigating sexual harassment complaints filed by three female officers against the former chief of the Savannah State University Police Department. The lieutenant sufficiently shows that he was engaged in protected activity when he opposed the alleged harassment. He also points to sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between the protected activity and his termination, as well as evidence that the proffered reason for his termination was pretextual.
Court: USDC Southern District of Georgia, Judge: Baker, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 4:21cv147, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, employment Retaliation
J. Xinis grants T.J. Maxx’s motion for summary judgment following allegations of race discrimination brought by a former store manager. The manager, a Black woman, was fired, but she had several incidents of forgery in her record over her five years with the company. Also, other Black employees of similar stature were not discriminated against due to race and a Black person was hired in her place, so she lacks standing.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Xinis, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 8:20cv3204, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Brown finds the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to the water authority in this wrongful termination suit. No genuine issue of material fact exists in relation to the former employee’s claims under the Arkansas Whistleblower Act or the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The employee failed to refute the evidence that he was terminated for the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons of failing to meet expectations and for insubordination and harassment. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Brown, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: CV-21-252, Categories: Evidence, employment Retaliation
J. Stratton finds the trial court improperly found in favor of the tax auditor, awarding him over $425,000 on his claim that the administration retaliated against him for filing an internal complaint with its equal opportunity office. The court erred in admitting evidence of activity occurring before the office complaints were filed. Admission of the first complaint and supplement, which as a matter of law was not a complaint about retaliation, was also prejudicial against the administration. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Stratton, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: B309007, Categories: Evidence, employment Retaliation
J. Chutkan denies, in part, the government's motion to dismiss discrimination and retaliation claims filed by a veteran and former worker with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He has adequately pleaded his claims for age and disability discrimination.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Chutkan , Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv2709, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Veterans, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Traum denies a grocery store’s motion for summary judgment as to the employee’s negligent retention and sexual harassment claims arising from another employee’s harassing behavior. The employee made several complaints that were not followed up on, and the manager eventually told the other employee about who was making the complaint, violating the policy of anonymity. The employee has presented genuine disputes of material fact as to both her negligent retention and sexual harassment claims, as the harassment occurred frequently enough to be considered pervasive. As she has conceded her retaliation claim, summary judgment is granted the grocery on this claim only.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Traum, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv2066, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: Civil Rights, employment Retaliation
J. Shea answers a certified question from the Ninth Circuit concerning whether, in an action for wrongful discharge, an employer may defend a termination solely for reasons given in a discharge letter. The court says y. The internet provider cites the Montana Supreme Court’s holding in the case referred to as “Galbreath.” The holding in this case states that “any collateral reasons suggested by the evidence, other than the sole reason stated in the discharge letter, were irrelevant, and therefore, inadmissible.” Because the Galbreath rule is an evidentiary rule predicated on the Montana Rules of Evidence, it has not been superseded by statutory amendments from 1999.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: Shea, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: OP 22-0023, Categories: Evidence, Judiciary, employment Retaliation
J. McShane denies summary judgment to the department of corrections for the corrections officer's claim that another officer sexually assaulted her, leading her to resign when rumors circulated that she consensually slept with the other officer to advance her career. A jury could reasonably assume that the corrections officer's co-workers retaliated against her for filing her complaint because the rumors and hostile work environment happened on a regular basis for nearly a year, to the point that she had to take leave multiple times to handle her anxiety and panic attacks, and the department of corrections' refusal to investigate the rumors could be construed as retaliation.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: McShane, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: 6:21cv1267, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment Discrimination, Whistleblowers, employment Retaliation
J. Carney finds in favor of the U.S. Department of Veteran Affair for the former blind rehabilitation specialist’s claim that she was fired from her probationary position at the Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center’s Blind Rehabilitation Center because she is a brown-skinned Hispanic who raised concerns about disparate workplace treatment, patient wait times and faulty equipment. The former employee does not show that the “legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonretaliatory” reasons for her termination were pretextual, because they were based on her poor work performance and disrespectful conduct.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Carney, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 8:21cv1283, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Liu, upon review, finds the court of appeal improperly affirmed the trial court’s finding that the former employee is not subject to protection for complaining about unpaid wages. A protected disclosure under the relevant labor code encompasses reports of violations made to an agency even if the recipient already knows of the violation. Remanded.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: S269456, Categories: Civil Rights, Agency, employment Retaliation
J. Frank partially grants the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s claims against it, dismissing the employee’s declaratory judgment, Fair Labor Standards Act and Minnesota Payment of Wages Act claims but not her Minnesota Whistleblower Act, breach of contract and of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment claims. The employee did not make a demand for unpaid wages prior to litigation as required under the Payment of Wages Act and has voluntarily dismissed the Fair Labor Standards Act claim, and her declaratory judgment claim is duplicative of her breach of contract claim. Her other claims are adequately pled for this stage of litigation.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: May 19, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv2971, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, Whistleblowers, employment Retaliation
J. Frank grants the employer’s motion to dismiss the employee’s Fair Labor Standards Act, declaratory judgment, good faith and fair dealing and Minnesota Payment of Wages act claims, but denies its motion with respect to her claims of retaliation under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The FLSA claim was voluntarily dismissed, the declaratory judgment claim is duplicative of the breach of contract claim, and the employee did not make a demand for unpaid wages prior to litigation as required under the Payment of Wages Act. The employee has also alleged breaches of expressed, but not implied, covenants. The unjust enrichment claim has been sufficiently pled for this stage, since findings about the scope, validity or enforceability of the employee’s employment agreement is better reserved for summary judgment, and the contract and whistleblower claims are similarly sufficiently pled, since the employee has alleged that termination without cause would breach her contract and that she was terminated following a report of forgery.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Frank, Filed On: May 19, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv2972, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, Whistleblowers, employment Retaliation
J. Milazzo denies a request by a pest control company to dismiss a religious discrimination suit by an employee fired for refusing to get a mandated Covid-19 vaccination. The former employee alleges he was terminated in August 2021 because he told his employer that his Catholic faith prevented him from being injected with the vaccine derived from aborted fetal cell lines. In response, a manager allegedly stated, “The Pope wants you to take it.” Terminix denies the allegation. The company unsuccessfully argued the ex-employee makes no factual connection between his “sincerely held belief and his termination.” The terminated exterminator has established a claim for religious discrimination.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Milazzo, Filed On: May 19, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv3701, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation