12 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND cat:"Contract" AND cat:"Employment Retaliation"'.
J. Seabright refuses to dismiss part of a fired employee’s complaint against state deputy attorneys general for informing his Japanese employer about his previous litigation history. One of these attorneys general does not have qualified immunity as there is evidence of the deputy attorney general contacting his former employer. There is also evidence of malice and that she would have known about the employee’s employment contract at the Japanese company. Emotional distress claims are dismissed, however, as the act was not “outrageous.”
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Seabright, Filed On: April 29, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv359, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Government, Interference With contract, employment Retaliation
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
J. Kendall grants a consulting firm and its president’s motion to dismiss in this employment contract lawsuit brought by a former regional sales leader. The unjust enrichment, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act violation and retaliation claims are dismissed with prejudice because he fails to allege a contract or employment agreement. Therefore, those claims could not survive a third motion to dismiss. The breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation are new claims to be dismissed without prejudice, therefore these claims can be amended by a second complaint by Nov. 20, 2023.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kendall, Filed On: October 30, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv6988, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, 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 Fifth Circuit finds the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Harris County in this employment retaliation claim brought by the employee responsible for maintaining blood-alcohol testing instruments who left her job, saying that she was not allowed to maintain the instruments at optimum level. The employee found similar employment with a college that the county contracted with but was laid off after the county allowed its contract to lapse after the employee's testimony on the equipment quality resulted a defendant's acquittal. The employee's injury resulting from nonrenewal of a contract between the defendant and the third-party employer was too indirect and derivative to confer standing. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 20-20527, Categories: contract, employment Retaliation
Per curiam, the Fifth Circuit finds the district court properly granted summary judgment to the university in this suit brought by the former professor alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act related to her irritable bowel syndrome diagnosis that affected her ability to teach. The university admits that it required the professor to document each absence to conform with sick leave policy, and she shows no evidence supporting her claim that this pertained to FMLA leave. The professor does not point to any protected activity sufficient to support a retaliation claim, and her failure to accommodate claim fails as an employer is not required to “modify [other’s job] duties, reassign … or hire new employees,” which would have been necessary for the professor to teach online courses solely. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 9, 2023, Case #: 22-30615, Categories: Health Care, contract, employment Retaliation
J. Sargus denies both parties' motions for summary judgment, ruling that questions of fact regarding whether the company's employee was authorized to give a job offer to the applicant, as well as the lack of a written offer to the support the applicant's version of events, prevent judgment on the contract claim brought by the applicant.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Sargus, Filed On: June 13, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv5664, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: contract, employment Retaliation