10 results for 'judge:"Helmick"'.
J. Helmick grants the employer's motion for summary judgment, ruling the Hispanic employee cannot establish a prima facie case for race discrimination. He cites only one allegedly racist comment from a coworker - a remark disputed by the coworker, made about wearing a sombrero - while the employer had several legitimate reasons to fire him, including repeatedly showing up late to work and threatening a coworker following a disciplinary meeting.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Helmick, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv1551, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Evidence, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Helmick denies, in part, the pizza chain operator's motion for summary judgment, ruling too many factual disputes exist regarding terms of its franchise agreement with the development company, including what qualifies as opening a restaurant, to determine at this stage whether the development company met its obligations under the agreement.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Helmick, Filed On: January 5, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv2024, NOS: Franchise - Contract, Categories: Evidence, Contract
J. Helmick grants the federal government's motion for summary judgment, ruling the administrative review board properly considered all of the evidence presented by both the employer and the government regarding payment of subminimum wages to disabled employees; therefore, its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Because the board's decision was supported by credible evidence and the employer failed to prove the wages were based only on the productivity of the employees, the employer will pay the full amount of liquidated damages requested by the government to the employees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Helmick, Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv2325, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Administrative Law, Government, Labor
J. Helmick grants the university's motion to dismiss, ruling the black employee's failure to file her administrative complaint with the EEOC within 300 days of her termination rendered that filing untimely and, therefore, she failed to properly exhaust her administrative remedies before she filed this federal lawsuit.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Helmick, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv1022, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, 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. Helmick grants the employer's motion for summary judgment, ruling the employee cannot establish a prima facie case for retaliation because she had several disciplinary issues prior to her filing of a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, a filing that was too far removed from her termination to establish causation. Meanwhile, the claim she was replaced by a male employee without any other details is insufficient to support the employee's gender discrimination claim.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Helmick, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv770, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Evidence, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Helmick grants GM's motion for summary judgment, ruling the black employee cannot establish a prima facie case for race discrimination because the white employees she cites as comparators were not treated differently regarding requests to leave their shifts early, given they followed the proper procedures and had their requests granted on the basis of seniority. Meanwhile, over three years passed between the employee's previous lawsuit and her termination, and when combined with GM's legitimate reason to fire her - several absences and tardies - she cannot establish a prima facie case for retaliation.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Helmick, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 3:20cv2639, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Helmick denies the plastic surgeon's motion to dismiss human trafficking claims filed by victims of his sexual assaults, ruling that while typical claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act involve conduct by the victims, the Act does not preclude instances like the one in this case, where victims were forced to perform sexual acts after being incapacitated. Meanwhile, the motion to dismiss filed by the surgeon's ex-wife will be granted because the mere existence of a relationship between the two is insufficient to impose liability for the surgeon's crimes, especially considering the victims provide no evidence she was aware of or participated in his criminal scheme.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Helmick, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv1122, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Evidence, Assault
J. Helmick grants the unopposed motion to approve the settlement, ruling that the agreement will compensate underpaid employees fairly and was the result of good faith negotiations by all parties. Meanwhile, the lead attorney of the class is entitled to one-third of the total settlement in fees and, therefore, is awarded $500,000 in fees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Helmick, Filed On: July 7, 2023, Case #: 3:20cv2340, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: Settlements, Attorney Fees, Labor