10 results for 'cat:"Damages" AND cat:"Employment Retaliation"'.
J. Peterson enters default judgment in favor of an employee. An employee alleges her employer fired her because she became pregnant and did not want to allow her to take medical leave. Because the the employer failed to appear or respond to the complaint, and because the employee has made plausible claims, the instant court finds in favor of the employee awarding her $150,176 in damages, as well as attorney fees and costs.
Court: USDC Western District of Wisconsin, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 23cv442, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, damages, employment Retaliation
J. Hale grants the district's motion to dismiss this employment retaliation and discrimination suit. The former employee alleges she was subject to harassment and discrimination. Her complaint says certain supervisors were acting in the scope of their employment, and her claims must fail under the intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine. The employee's argument a supervisor was acting in his personal interest when he fired her is contradicted by the complaint. The dismissal of her improperly-made standalone claim for punitive damages does not preclude her from recovering damages if the evidence warrants.
Court: USDC Western District of Kentucky, Judge: Hale , Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv42, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: damages, Employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Marbley grants, in part, the employer's motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling the employee's claim for liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act is barred because the underlying liability regarding overtime pay is disputed by the employer.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Marbley, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1874, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: damages, employment Retaliation, Labor
J. Usman finds the lower court properly found in favor of an employee in this contract and employment matter. A timeshare cancellation negotiating company terminated an employee for attendance issues, but the employee argued her termination was retaliatory because she invoiced the company for unpaid commissions per her employment contract. A jury agreed with the employee and awarded her damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, retaliatory discharge and punitive damages. The employer argued the awards were erroneous and excessive, but the instant court finds no error in the trial court’s determination. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Usman, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: M2022-00630-COA-R3-CV, Categories: damages, Contract, 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
Per curiam, the circuit finds that the district court properly ordered retrial for damages only after an employee prevailed in claims contending he had been subjected to retaliatory firing by a federal contractor that provides educational and vocational training to at-risk youths. The initial damages award of $3.2 million inflated future earnings and harm from termination, and the court properly declined to offer the option of remittal since the damages award was so outsized. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 23-87, Categories: damages, employment Retaliation
J. Scullin awards a 66-year-old deputy superintendent back pay and front pay in the form of $4,000 yearly pension fund payments until 2042 after a jury found New York’s corrections department liable on her single claim for retaliation after she was demoted. The court further awards her $58,230 in attorney fees and costs.
Court: USDC Northern District of New York, Judge: Scullin, Filed On: December 6, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv155, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: damages, Attorney Fees, employment Retaliation
J. Harjani denies the Chicago Transit Authority’s motion for a new trial on liability and damages, damages alone or a remittitur on jury award, stemming from the underlying race discrimination and retaliation case brought by an electrician. At trial, the jury returned a split verdict by finding the transit agency not liable for race discrimination, but siding with the electrician on his retaliatory harassment claims and awarding him $99,000 in damages. The court finds that a new trial is not warranted because nothing in the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Harjani, Filed On: August 10, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv6093, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: damages, Employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Alexander finds the appeals court properly upheld the award of damages to the truck driver for lost wages after he was fired for expressing concerns about the safety of his employer's vehicles. The employer provided no rebuttal evidence for the driver's testimony about his pay rate, length of unemployment, or the number of miles he averaged per week while driving for the employer. Although the driver did not provide specific evidence to support his unpaid wages claim, the jury was in the best position to determine his credibility, and the lack of rebuttal evidence made the award reasonable and supported by the evidence in the record. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Alexander, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: SC20718, Categories: Jury, damages, employment Retaliation
J. Zukin holds that that the trial court properly found an employee was fired for refusing to continue to perform work on a holographic entertainment production that he reasonably believed would be unlawfully dangerous. And the $7 million damages award, which included $6 million in punitive damages, was supported by evidence of the employer's reprehensible disregard of warnings about dangers to the health and safety of workers and attendees. The employer also exhibited malice by screaming obscenities and homophobic epithets while firing the employee in front of coworkers. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Zukin, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: B317334, Categories: damages, employment Retaliation