17 results for 'judge:"Newman"'.
J. Newman grants the police department's motion for summary judgment, ruling the police officer's age discrimination claim fails. The younger officer used as a comparator did not commit the same type of misconduct and, therefore, is not similarly situated, while a supervisor's single comment about "younger officers" during disciplinary proceedings does not constitute direct evidence of discrimination. Meanwhile, the retaliation claim also fails as a matter of law because the fitness for duty evaluation required before the officer could return to work was not an "adverse employment action," especially considering the officer blamed several mistakes that led to his suspension on the stress of his job.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Newman, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv96, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Newman grants the agricultural waste companies' motion for summary judgment, ruling the citizen suit under the Clean Air Act is barred by the diligent prosecution doctrine. The EPA has taken reasonable steps to ensure the companies' compliance with air quality standards, including shutting down portions of their plant through enforcement of a consent decree that contains civil fines for noncompliance.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Newman, Filed On: February 12, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv102, NOS: Environmental Matters - Other Suits, Categories: Civil Procedure, Environment, Government
J. Newman grants the employer's motion for summary judgment, ruling the 57-year-old employee cannot establish a prima facie case for age discrimination because the younger candidate who was selected for a promotion to equipment operator had similar qualifications and was already working in the same department, while a single comment during the older employee's interview about his retirement cannot prove pretext. Meanwhile, the retaliation claim also fails because the employee's only evidence his supervisors knew about his EEOC complaint is that "Troy is a small town," which is insufficient to satisfy notice requirements.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Newman, Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv484, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment Discrimination, 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
J. Newman recommends denying, in part, a transport company’s motion to dismiss a truck driver’s employment retaliation and related claims. He has sufficiently pleaded his claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodations, leave retaliation, breach of implied-in-fact contract, and negligent hiring, supervision and retention.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Newman, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv311, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: Employment, Transportation, Contract
J. Newman denies the government's motion to dismiss, ruling the chamber of commerce's request for injunctive relief on claims related to government-set prescription drug prices under the Inflation Reduction Act allows it to pursue claims under associational standing on behalf of several drug manufacturers. However, because there is insufficient evidence at this stage to show a likelihood of success on the merits of the chambers' claims and any economic harm to the manufacturers will not be realized for years, their request for a preliminary injunction will be denied.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Newman, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv156, NOS: Constitutionality of State Statutes - Other Suits, Categories: Constitution, Government, Injunction
J. Newman denies, in part, the government’s motion to dismiss an individual's claims for a $12,000 tax refund and equitable estoppel. The individual followed the proper civil procedure to seek a tax refund return, and has sufficiently alleged his claims.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Newman, Filed On: August 16, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv432, NOS: IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609 - Federal Tax Suits, Categories: Civil Procedure, Tax
J. Newman grants the school district's motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that the students' and parents' Title IX claims do not include a plausible injury-in-fact because the students' "aversion to encountering a transgender student in the bathroom" does not involve sex discrimination of any kind, much less the kind included under Title IX. Meanwhile, the parents' due process claim fails as a matter of law because the district's decision to allow students to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity does not implicate their right to send their children to a specific school, while parents are not afforded the right to determine a school's curriculum or the operation of its facilities.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Newman, Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv337, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Education, Due Process
J. Newman denies in part the hospital's motion to dismiss, ruling that it is not entitled to immunity on defamation claims brought by the doctor because both the false statements about the doctor's performance and the eventual editing of the employment report to cover up those false statements are fraudulent activities that abrogate immunity granted under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. However, because the doctor failed to exhaust all administrative remedies under the Act prior to filing suit, the request for an injunction must be dismissed until he complies with exhaustion requirements.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Newman, Filed On: August 4, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv341, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Employment, Immunity, Defamation
J. Newman recommends denying, in part, a school district’s motion for summary judgment on a mother’s claims regarding the treatment of her son, who is intellectually and physically disabled. There are questions of fact that preclude judgment on the claims for excessive force, disability discrimination and battery.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Newman, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: 2:17cv1666, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Education