20 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND cat:"Sanctions" AND cat:"Employment Discrimination"'.
J. Howard grants the employer's motion for summary judgment on the employee's four remaining claims in his employment-discrimination suit, alleging race, sex and color discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and retaliation. The employee failed to timely exhaust his administrative remedies for all of these claims. A motion for sanctions brought by the employee is denied, but his motions for judicial notice and clarification are partially granted.
Court: USDC Middle District of Florida, Judge: Howard, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv905, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, sanctions, employment Discrimination
J. Weksler grants the former employee's motion for sanctions. The employee brings claims against AutoZone for sexual discrimination arising from his manager's sexual advances, including taunting the employee with a dildo and masturbating out of range of the store's surveillance cameras. The employee seeks sanctions against AutoZone due to surveillance video showing certain events having been overwritten. Sanctions are appropriate for spoilation, and the court will preclude AutoZone from arguing the video did not corroborate allegations but will allow it to argue it did not show any masturbation.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Weksler , Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv316, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: sanctions, Emotional Distress, employment Discrimination
J. Hull finds that the district court properly ruled in favor of the employer in a disability discrimination action brought by the former employee alleging that the employer violated the ADA by firing her to avoid paying healthcare costs associated with her multiple sclerosis and severe migraines. The employee failed to show that the employer's non-discriminatory reasons for firing her after her job became automated were pretextual. The district court correctly awarded $1,000 in discovery sanctions in the employer's favor. Affirmed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Hull, Filed On: February 16, 2024, Case #: 22-12045, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, sanctions, employment Discrimination
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. Docherty grants the employer's motion to amend the scheduling order in a case brought by six employees alleging racial and disability discrimination and harassment, and partially grants its motion to compel production of previously requested material, allow continued depositions, permit third-party discovery and for an award of costs associated with late disclosures. The motion to compel is denied without prejudice as relating to communications with one employee prior to her retaining of representation, since acknowledging the existence of such communications would fall under Fifth Amendment privilege. Production of other requested materials is ordered. A motion for sanctions is granted since, if the employer is correct in stating that the employees intentionally concealed evidence, the employees have inexcusably sought to subvert the legal system.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Docherty, Filed On: December 18, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv1904, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: sanctions, Discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Pham denies the plaintiff employee's motion for discovery sanctions in this lawsuit alleging sex discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII. The former employee seeks sanctions against the employer after surveillance video of an alleged incident with a coworker was not produced. Sanctions are not appropriate, however, because the defendant company had no duty to preserve the evidence at the time it allegedly erased the video pursuant to its video retention policy.
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Pham, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv2705, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: sanctions, Discovery, employment Discrimination
J. Navarro dismisses this racial discrimination suit brought by the former Domino’s employee. After Domino’s motion to compel was granted due to the employee’s failure to respond, the court granted his motion to reconsider when he explained that the website used for filings (PACER) did not provide a response deadline. An included screenshot was shown to have been falsified. The employee has repeatedly submitted falsified evidence and offered misrepresentations when asked to explain.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Navarro, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv784, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: sanctions, employment Discrimination
J. Starr sanctions Southwest for rewording a court-ordered release to its flight attendants, in which it said “’Southwest does not discriminate against [e]mployees for their religious practices and beliefs,’” which improperly made it sound as though the district court was “bequeathing Southwest a badge of honor for not discriminating.” Three Southwest attorneys are ordered to attend religious-liberty training and Southwest must reissue the court-ordered statement verbatim.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Starr, Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: 3:17cv2278, NOS: Railway Labor Act - Labor, Categories: sanctions, Transportation, employment Discrimination
J. Rice grants the Psychiatry Department Chair's motion for sanctions against the university, ruling he was prejudiced by its deletion of emails between he and his administrative assistant because it will prevent him from presenting a complete picture of his ability to effectively communicate with students and other staff members. The university will be precluded from presenting any evidence to the jury about the chair's alleged failure to effectively communicate with students or that they avoided him prior to his termination.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Rice, Filed On: July 26, 2023, Case #: 3:18cv358, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Education, sanctions, employment Discrimination
J. Doty grants an emergency motion for dismissal with prejudice as a sanction against the employee, herself an attorney, and her attorneys for misleading the employer about her employment and thus her claimed economic damages in this employment discrimination action. Both the attorney and her two attorneys are also referred to the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility for potential investigation.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Doty, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: 0:20cv1534, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: sanctions, employment Discrimination
J. Pepper denies the cheese company's motion to seal parts of the record in the employee's discrimination lawsuit where he alleges or implies the company uses illegal child labor and engaged in other criminal activity, including attempting to entice him with female minors. Although the employee is once again warned not to make these kinds of "irrelevant" and "inappropriate" allegations of criminal activity in his lawsuit, there is no basis under Seventh Circuit precedent to seal the documents as requested by the company, in part because they do not fit any of the three categories providing basis to seal and the company did not follow local rules by filing a redacted version of the documents they wish to have sealed. The employee is admonished that further violations of the court's rules and orders could result in sanctions.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Pepper, Filed On: June 11, 2023, Case #: 2:18cv1335, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, sanctions, employment Discrimination