25 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND cat:"Jury"'.
Per curiam, the Texas Supreme Court finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled in favor of a truck driver who sued the owners of three companies that manage the trucking operation after he was injured falling asleep behind the wheel and crashing. There is a lack of evidence to show that the truck driver was an employee of one of the owners. Furthermore, the trial court incorrectly used a pattern jury charge to define "employee," rather than a federal definition. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 21-0853, Categories: employment, jury
Per curiam, the court vacates this settlement agreement that a jury decided in favor of the former employee for more than $1.5 million after he was wrongfully terminated from the county. The employee argued that, as a serviceman, his Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act claims should be litigated, but that the settlement agreement had been presented as a “take it or leave it.” The case is remanded so a jury can determine whether the settlement agreement outweighs the Act. Vacated.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 11, 2024, Case #: 22-6054, Categories: employment, jury, Settlements
J. Rothstein denies Boeing summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim in the employee's complaint alleging that Boeing did not properly investigate his complaint against a manager and did not stop its employees from harassing the employee after he filed a workers’ compensation claim for a “brain/mental/stress” injury. The hostile work environment claim is not time barred because a reasonable jury could consider that the incident with the manager is part of an ongoing hostile work environment.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Rothstein, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv5728, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, jury
J. Milkey concludes that an independent contractor, who feels he should have been classified as an employee and given employee benefits, does not have standing for his claim because he provided his services to the company that hired him through two intermediaries. The contractor is unable to demonstrate an error when the jury instructions on standing are viewed in conjunction with the verdict slip.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Milkey, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 23-P-183, Categories: employment, jury, Contract
J. DeGravells denies a second request for summary judgment to Walmart, finding a shopper shows a genuine issue of material fact as to the store’s knowledge of a liquid in an aisle prior to her slip and fall accident. An employee-witness's contradictory statements, including whether the woman slipped on water or a reddish liquid resembling “congealed meat juice,” must be considered by a jury.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: DeGravelles, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv488-, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: employment, jury, Discovery
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. Hassan reverses the trial court's final judgment that awarded $3.8 million to an oil and gas worker who was injured by pressurized fluid that "unexpectedly shot out of the end of a hose he was carrying" when another worker negligently opened a valve. The defendant company's request for a jury question regarding the borrowed employee doctrine was incorrectly denied since it was a "controlling factual issue" relating to liability. A new trial is warranted for all claims and parties. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Hassan, Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 14-22-00473-CV, Categories: employment, jury, Damages
J. St. Eve finds that the lower court properly rejected the employee's employment retaliation claims at a jury trial. The court's jury instructions were not misleading, even if they asked the jury to question the employer's "belief" for firing the employee. Further, the court was within its discretion to deny the employee's for-cause challenge to a prospective juror based on an alleged bias against Black men. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: St. Eve, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 22-2619, Categories: jury, employment Retaliation
J. Silva denies the casino's motion for summary judgment on an employment discrimination claim filed by the intellectually disabled job applicant after the casino did not hire her. Though the casino had made a conditional offer pursuant to the applicant's completing job training through her advocacy group, the offer was retracted after the applicant exhibited limited communication skills. Though it is undisputed she had difficulty, because her job coach had previously told the casino the applicant could not perform in a particular position, certain facts remain in dispute.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Silva , Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv1516, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Health Care, jury, employment Discrimination
J. Kobayashi denies the lab judgment that a jury entered a wrong damages verdict unsupported by evidence in the contract between the lab and a former employee. The jury in fact correctly determined that the lab violated the employment contract by altering his compensation amounts. The employee presented sufficient evidence comparing past compensation and evidence that the experience had been emotionally traumatizing. The lab is denied a new trial as there is no evidence of clear error.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Kobayashi, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: 1:19cv310, NOS: Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment - Contract, Categories: employment, Evidence, jury
J. Howell denies a company’s motion to disregard jury findings and amend judgment after it was sued by a former employee who alleged he was abruptly fired after loaning the company a large amount of money. At jury trial, jurors ruled mostly but not entirely in favor of the employee. They were “presented with sufficient evidence justifying the exact figure they chose,” and the company has not provided adequate basis for overturning their findings.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Howell, Filed On: December 1, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv331, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: employment, jury, Contract
J. Rothstein denies summary judgment to the EEOC for its mitigation of damages affirmative defense, which arises from its lawsuit alleging that the mental health services company withdrew a conditional job offer because a candidate's leg impairment prevented him from standing for long periods of time. The mental health services company sent the candidate job offer opportunities that he did not apply for during the relevant period of his job search, so a reasonable jury could conclude that the candidate had substantially equivalent employment opportunities aside from the one to which he applied.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Rothstein, Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv1339, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, employment, jury
J. Tymkovich vacates a judgment that was issued in favor of a former employee for an oilfield company. The employee sued the company with claims that it wrongfully exempted him from overtime pay, and the lower court found in his favor and awarded him $40,000. However, the jury was improperly instructed to determine if his salary was exempt from regulations relating to the Fair Labor Standards Act, a question that should have been left for the court to decide. Because that question was improperly handed off to the jury, a new trial is needed. Vacated.
Court: 10th Circuit, Judge: Tymkovich, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 21-1231, Categories: employment, jury, Labor
J. Estudillo denies the county a new trial for the Roads Division employees' lawsuit alleging that their supervisors and co-workers made anti-Latino remarks without reprimand. The county claims that the employees' attorney committed misconduct by having slides in a PowerPoint presentation that regarded dismissed claims, thus warranting a new trial. The several isolated examples of alleged attorney misconduct that the county cites, which occurred over the course of a lengthy trial, likely did not influence the jury's decision or prejudice them in a significant way. It is more likely that the jury simply believed the employees' witnesses more than the county's witnesses.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Estudillo, Filed On: September 8, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv5411, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, jury, employment Discrimination
J. Rodriguez finds a lower court ruled correctly by mostly ruling in favor of Austin after an employee accused the city of employment discrimination. The jury found that Austin had indeed taken some retaliatory actions against the employee but awarded him zero damages. The employee argued the jury and the lower court had erred in a number of ways, including when prosecutors referenced “domestic violence allegation details and false news reports” against him during closing arguments, but he did not adequately preserve error, and the jury could have reasonably concluded that he “did suffer mental anguish but [that] it stemmed from other circumstances in his life unconnected to his work environment.” Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00041-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, jury, employment Retaliation
J. Hamilton finds that the lower court properly ruled for Costco on an employee's ADA claim that it remodeled the store in a way that made it impossible for her to continue in her position as Optical Manager given her difficulties walking and standing. While there was a clear error in the jury instructions, the error was not so prejudicial as to require a new trial in this case. Further, the court did not err in allowing both parties to introduce photographs of the workplace that had not been disclosed in discovery. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Hamilton, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 22-2067, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, jury, employment Discrimination
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. Woodcock denies an employee’s motion for a new trial and motion for equitable relief. There was no error in the juror selection process or the instruction of the jury, the evidence submitted to the jury sufficiently supported the jury’s verdict and there was no juror bias meriting a new trial. The verdict should not be overridden on the basis of a quantum meruit claim, because quantum meruit is meant to be ruled on by a jury. The employee failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to support her claim against her employer for unjust enrichment.
Court: USDC Maine, Judge: Woodcock, Filed On: July 18, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv12, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: employment, jury, employment Discrimination
J. Pryor finds that the district court improperly denied the employee's motion to alter a judgment awarding him $240,000 in lost wages in an action against the employer alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The motion arose after the jury found that the employer willfully violated the law, which would have resulted in a double damages award for the employee under the statute. The district court incorrectly ruled that the jury's finding on willfulness was merely advisory. The jury's finding was binding and should have been honored. Sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict on the employee's claim for discrimination, including evidence that the chief pilot expressed hostility towards military pilots including the employee. Reversed in part.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Pryor, Filed On: June 22, 2023, Case #: 22-11322, Categories: jury, employment Discrimination