Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independentexpenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McCon-nell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 203–209 (2003).

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).) The litigation costs that the prevailing party may recover include attorney fees when recovery of such fees is authorized by statute. (Id., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).) But when “the prevailing party rec

Angela LaFary liked her job as a field clerk at the Martinsville, Indiana, office of Rogers Group, Inc. (“RGI”), a company in the business of producing crushed stone for road construction and similar uses. Shortly after she became pregnant, however, RGI transferred her to Bloomington, eventually letting her go after she had taken more than six months of leave necessitated by complications with

Kathleen A. Serwatka filed suit against her former employer, Rockwell Automation, Inc. (“Rockwell”), under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. (the “ADA”), alleging that Rockwell discharged her because it regarded her as being disabled, despite her ability to perform the essential functions of her job. A jury agreed with Serwatka, answering “Yes” to the f

Steven Howland sued American River Transportation Company and Archer-Daniels-Midland claiming that he was wrongfully terminated from his job in retaliation for threatening to report the flushing of oil into the Mississippi River that he witnessed.

The defenses asserted by Defendants are not available.

Plaintiff, Kimbley Denise Hill, challenges the dismissal of her employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation complaint for failure to state a claim. Hill began working for the Department of Public Works (“the Department”) for the City of Austin in June 1994. In June 2007, Hill filed a charge of discrimination in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) field of

Plaintiff–Appellant Daniel F. Rhodes sued Defendants–Appellees Tibor Prince, William Harris, James F. Roach, III, Gary Krohn, and Jerry D. Carroll (collectively, “Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from false arrest. The district court dismissed the action after finding that Rhodes failed to allege an arrest under t

Britton Lynn Kannady1 sought employment as a police officer in the Cities of Krebs and McAlester after he left his job as an officer for the City of Kiowa.

Both Krebs and McAlester refused to hire Mr. Kannady because of the statutory age limits governing the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System (OPPRS). Mr. Kannady sued Krebs and McAlester, alleging violations of the Age Discrimi

Anne Stanley1 appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Abacus Technology Corporation, arguing the district court erred in assessing her employment discrimination and retaliation claims. We affirm.2

Background

Stanley was hired by Barry Aguilar and Ken Moore as a photographer for Abacus in December 2004. Abacus photographers provided general photography service

Defendants Central Florida Investments, Inc., Westgate Resorts, Inc., Westgate Resorts, Ltd., CFI Sales and Marketing, Ltd., and David Siegel appeal and plaintiff Dawn Georgette Myers cross-appeals the judgment of the district court, after a jury trial, in favor of Myers in the amount of $610,469.84. Myers recovered $103,622.09 in compensatory damages and $506,847.75 in punitive damages arising fr

The False Claims Act (“FCA”) was designed to encourage reporting of false or fraudulent claims that are submitted to the federal government for approval or payment. Typically a relator—a whistle-blowing employee, a business partner or competitor—brings suit “for the benefit of the United States.” Mortgages, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 934 F.2d 209, 210 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). The gov

Jimmy Bivens, an officer in the Illinois State Police (“ISP”), discovered that he had elevated levels of lead in his blood due to lead contamination at the indoor firing range where he was stationed.

He complained to his superiors, both directly and through a union grievance, about the safety of the working conditions. The firing range was immediately analyzed and closed for environment

Appellants/cross-appellees Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (collectively “the City”), challenge the entry of judgment by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City after a jury verdict in favor of appellee/cross-appellant Zvi Guttman, trustee in bankruptcy for Ms. Deborah Mullins (“Ms. Mullins”), who brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City alleging that she was fired for engaging

Marie Lynette Austin appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) on her Title VII claim. Austin argues that the district court erred by holding that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and that the district court should have extended Title VII’s forty-five day filing deadline because she “did not know a

In this appeal, we address the interpretation of a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, governing the filing of whistleblower lawsuits in federal district court. The parties acknowledge that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act expressly provides a United States District Court jurisdiction to entertain a whistleblower action. However, they disagree as to whether a whistleblower plain

¶1 Plaintiff, Robert Reynolds, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma against his former employer, Advanced Alarms, Inc., defendant, and its principal owner, Robert Morrison, individual defendant. Reynolds claimed his former employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., and the public policy of Oklahoma whe

Plaintiffs Dava Dalvit and Debra Benjamin sued United Air Lines, Inc. (UAL) asserting discrimination and retaliation claims under a variety of federal and state statutes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UAL on all of their claims. Plaintiffs now appeal the grant of summary judgment on their discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196

Richard Phillips filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against John Dale, alleging that Mr. Dale terminated his employment in violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.1 Mr. Dale moved for summary judgment on the merits of Mr. Phillips’ claim, arguing that Mr. Phillips could not meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. Al

Chicago police officer Donna Lewis claims she was discriminated and retaliated against by the City of Chicago and her supervisor, Lt. Terrence Williams. Her claim was initially borne out of a decision by Williams to deny her request to participate in a special security detail in Washington, D.C. The acorn of that decision has produced an oak tree of litigation.

Initially, the district cou

At stake in this § 1983 free-speech retaliation action is whether Hamblen County Sheriff Esco Jarnigan refused to promote Harold Wolfe because Wolfe supported Jarnigan’s opponent in the 2006 election. The district court denied Jarnigan qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, and we affirm.

I.

Wolfe worked as a Hamblen County patrol deputy, detective and eventually chief

Plaintiff-Appellant Steven Simpson appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee, Vanderbilt University, on his claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112, et seq., (“ADA”), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., (“Title VII”). For the followi

n 2008, Janelle Rederford brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") for events occurring in 2002 in federal district court against US Airways, Inc. The court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the ADA claims had been disallowed and also had been discharged as "claims" under the Bankruptcy Code in the airline's 2003 bankruptcy. The federal court also rejected Rederford's ar

Plaintiff-Appellant Mary Barone appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee United Airlines, Inc. (“United”) on her Title VII claims of gender discrimination and retaliation. The district court concluded that Barone could not demonstrate a prima facie case under either theory of discrimination. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse

Lisa Coffey and James Patterson are former editorial writers at The Indianapolis Star who left the newspaper in 2003 and 2005, respectively. They departed under very different circumstances, but both claim they were victims of employment discrimination on the basis of their religion—more specifically, discrimination because they are Christians who believe that homosexual conduct is sinful. Patte

Appellant Tannislado Alvarado (Alvarado) filed a retaliation claim pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging that Appellee Cajun Operating Co. (Cajun) retaliated against him for complaining that his manager had discriminated against him based on his disability. Alvarado challenges the district court’s grant of Cajun’s motion in limine barring Alvarado from seeking punitive