Plaintiff-appellant Eula Christine Swimmer, a Native-American woman over the age of forty appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee in regard to her Title VII and age discrimination claims.

Ms. Swimmer worked as a supervisory medical technologist in the laboratory at Hastings Indian Medical Center. In February 2007, she was reassigned t

Appellant Alex Jaimez (Jaimez), a former Route Sales Representative (RSR) for respondent DAIOHS U.S.A., Inc., dba DAIOHS First Choice Services (First Choice), appeals the trial court‘s denial of his Motion for Class Certification (the certification motion) and his subsequent Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to substitute new class representatives (the motion to amend). In the Complaint and ce

This appeal arises from a Title VII claim brought by African-American civil engineer Geneva Brown against her employer, the Alabama Department of Transportation (“the Department”). Brown claimed that the 1 Department denied her nine separate promotions on account of her race, or for retaliatory reasons, between 2000 and 2005. Following a five-day trial, a jury sitting in the Northern District

Anthony Hayes appeals the district court’s1 orders denying his motion to compel discovery and impose sanctions, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, and granting summary judgment in his action alleging employment discrimination, retaliation, and violation of his due process and equal protection rights. We affirm.

Reviewing de novo, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th C

Julie Fairchild – asserting that the Liberty Independent School District Fairchild also has three children who during the relevant time period attended 1 District schools. The District maintains that it fired Fairchild for creating a classroom environment 2 not conducive to learning.

The District adopted DGBA (Local) and BEC (Legal) in an effort to comply with the 3 Texas Open Meetings

Petitioners and plaintiffs Young Seok Suh and Yongkew Chung (plaintiffs) are anesthesiologists who were with a medical group that entered into two anesthesiology contracts with a hospital. They seek review of an order by the trial court compelling arbitration. We grant the petition, holding that plaintiffs did not agree to arbitrate disputes relating to one of the contracts and that the terms of t

Plaintiff-Appellant Diane Gorzynski alleges that her former employer, JetBlue Airways Corporation (“JetBlue”) discriminated against her based on age and gender and retaliated against her for complaining to her supervisors about that age and gender discrimination, as well as race discrimination against other employees, thereby violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”

This case involves the allegedly discriminatory suspension of a physician’s medical staff privileges. Medical staff privileges allow a physician both to treat patients at the privilege-granting hospital and to receive patient referrals from that hospital. Appellees—physicians, administrators, and hospitals associated with WellStar Health System (WellStar)—suspended the medical staff privileg

Plaintiff Patricia Chavez-Rodriguez filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, in part, that Defendants David Coss, Karen Heldmeyer, and John Hiatt (collectively “Defendants”) retaliated against her in violation of her First Amendment rights while she was employed by the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico.1 Chavez-Rodriguez’s First Amendment claim was based on a variety of statements she made t

On this appeal, the question addressed is whether, as appellant Candido Marez contends, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was in error. Candido Marez (“Marez” or “plaintiff”) was the owner of Montrose Supply, a vendor of a wide variety of products to the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles (“DWP”), from the late 1980s until 200

This case presents questions of law regarding the enforcement of arbitration agreements. After the defendants announced their intention to waive enforcement of certain provisions of the arbitration agreement at issue, the district court (Koeltl, J.) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration.

We affirm the district court because we believe that the arb

Plaintiff-Appellant Janet Reinhardt appeals from the grant of summary judgment on both her Rehabilitation Act and First Amendment retaliation claims. On appeal, Ms. Reinhardt makes three major claims which, she argues, require reversal of the district court’s orders.

Ms. Reinhardt contends that: the district court incorrectly ruled that her protected speech—filing a state level complai

In this diversity action based on Kansas law, Reewen C. D’Souza-Kamath, M.D., appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his former employer, Cloud County Health Center, Inc. (CCHC). The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, the district court detailed both, D’Souza-Klamath v. Cloud County Health Center, Inc., No. 07-4031-KGS, 2009 WL 902377,

KaRon Robinson (KaRon) filed a Title VII suit claiming her employer, Cavalry Portfolio Services, L.L.C. (Cavalry), discriminated against her because she is a white woman married to a black man, Orlando Robinson (Orlando).1 KaRon represented herself at trial. The jury returned a verdict in her favor on claims of disparate treatment, retaliation and hostile work environment. Cavalry appeals from the

Hilda Negrete sued the City of Laredo (“the City”) under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, alleging claims for hostile work environment and retaliation. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. §§ 21.051, 21.055 (Vernon 2006). The jury found in favor of Negrete on both of her claims, and she was awarded $300,000 in compensatory damages plus attorneys’ fees. We reverse the trial court’s judgment to the

After Weld County chose to hire someone else as its Fiscal Officer, Margee Johnson, an accountant for the County, came to believe that she didn’t get the job because she is a woman and has a physical disability.

In response, she brought this lawsuit, alleging discrimination in violation of, among other things, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disability

The statute known as Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, is widely recognized as the source of a vast expansion of athletic oppor- MANSOURIAN v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 2213 tunities for women in the nation’s schools and universities, so much so that a company that sells women’s athletic apparel now mimics its name. See www.titlenine.com.

Despite that renown, the district court in

The Officials participated in a conspiracy to harass and intimidate HCA, a Christian faith-based boarding school in northeastern Missouri. HCA educates and provides social services to children with behavioral and substance abuse problems.

As of 2001, approximately 120 of HCA’s 220 students lived on HCA’s campus. Two of the conspiracy’s more prominent members were Chief Juvenile Office

Paul Turner worked as a waiter for The Saloon, Ltd. (“The Saloon”), a Chicago steakhouse, and claims he was the victim of several forms of employment discrimination. Turner had a months-long sexual relationship with his supervisor and claims that when he ended it, she persistently sexually harassed him. He also claims The Saloon discriminated against him on the basis of a disability; he suffer

Elmer Robert Keach, III, Interevenor-Appellant, appeals from a decision of the
20 United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Gary L. Sharpe,
21 Judge) denying a motion for recusal and declining to impose sanctions on Keach.
22 Keach argues that Judge Sharpe should have recused himself from further proceedings on
23 his sua sponte order to show cause as to w

We are asked in this appeal to determine whether Maryland’s expansive damage remedy for State constitutional violations is subject to key strictures of the statutorily-created Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA), Md. Code (1973, 2006 Repl. Vol.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (C&JP) §§ 5-301 et seq. This question arises in the context of allegations by appellee and cross-appella

At issue on this appeal are several questions centering on the operation of the two-year statute of limitations applicable to the antiretaliation provision of New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d). In particular, we are asked to declare whether the statute of limitations bars a retaliation claim based both on an employee's discharge and on a post-discharge retaliatory

Parties to a lawsuit, generally, are free to negotiate the terms of a settlement in the way they see fit. The plaintiff, typically, will discount the maximum value of the case by factoring the probability of an unfavorable verdict and a low damages award. The defendant likely will accept a financial settlement that is worth the risk of averting an unfavorable judgment, a high monetary awar

The Court considers whether the County of Monmouth may withhold public disclosure of its agreement with an employee to settle her sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit.

In April 2005, Carol Melnick, a Monmouth County employee, filed a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation and hostile work environment. The complaint named as defendants the Monm

¶1 Appellants Robert Edwards (Edwards), Daniel Kohm (Kohm), and David Zrowka (Zrowka) are current and former sheriff’s deputies who sued their employer on constitutional and tort theories related to political retaliation and statutory wage claims. Appellants John Doe (Doe), Ray St. Onge (St. Onge), and Loius Goaziou (Goaziou), all held the rank of lieutenant in Cascade County and brought simila