Plaintiff Nekia Anderson appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Wintco, Inc., doing business as Sonic Drive-In-Huntsville, Inc., (Sonic), in her case alleging a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

I.

M

Plaintiff-Appellant Carole Strickland brought various state and federal claims against Defendant-Appellee United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) after she stopped working for UPS. The only claims at issue in this appeal are claims of retaliation for utilizing the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, and sex discrimination. After Strickland presented her case at tri

Plaintiff Tamie Luty, a former Saginaw police lieutenant, appeals
from a jury verdict against her in this First Amendment retaliation and gender discrimination
case, in which she claimed

Sally K. Harris put four claims before the district court: (1) termination in retaliation for the exercise of free speech, (2) sexual harassment, (3) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and (4) gender discrimination. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on all counts. Harris appeals the judgment of the district court with respect to her sex

Plaintiff Sharon Wharton appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, defendant The Gorman-Rupp Company, on her claims of age discrimination and retaliation for complaining about age and sex discrimination, under OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 4112.14(A) and 4112.02(I). Wharton contends that Gorman-Rupp’s rejection of her application for the position of executive

Plaintiff-Appellant Nada Hashem-Younes (“Younes”), a Muslim female of Lebanese descent, is a former at-will employee of the World Trade Center Detroit/Windsor Languages Institute. She was discharged after roughly 80 days on the job for poor performance. Younes sued in district court, charging Defendants-Appellees Danou Enterprises, Inc., Samir Danou, and Barry Whyte (collectively “Defendants

Patricia Barachkov, Nancy Englar and Carol Diehl, employees of the 41B District Court in Clinton Township, Michigan, were fired from their jobs in July 2004. Following their terminations, Appellants filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Appellees had violated Appellants’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by ending their employment because of interview statements Appellants m

Bernard Garner (“Garner”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as reinstatement, against City of Cuyahoga Falls (“City”) and several City officials: Mayor Don Robart (“Robart”), Director of Community Development Susan Truby (“Truby”), Director of Public Service Valorie Wax Carr (“Carr”) and Director of Law Vir

The question before us is whether a school district‟s decision not to reelect a probationary teacher is subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, where it is alleged that the decision was made in retaliation for the teacher‟s participation in protected activities. We conclude that, pursuant to Board of Education v. Round Valley Teachers Assn. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 269, 281 (R

This appeal involves an alleged retaliatory discharge of an employee after she complained about co-workers and one of her supervisors and presents a question that this circuit has not yet answered: Can a final decision maker’s wholly independent, legitimate decision to terminate an employee insulate from liability a lower-level supervisor involved in the process who had a retaliatory motive to h

Alfonso Davenport sued the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees and officials of the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (collectively “the University”) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 based on his failure to receive a promotion. The district court2 granted summary judgment to the University. Davenport appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

I.<

Maria Zerante brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Chicago Heights Mayor Anthony DeLuca and his Chief of Staff, Daniel Proft, alleging that she was fired in retaliation for her political activities. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and Zerante appealed. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Maria Ze

Gregg Hill sued First Citizens Banc Corp. and Mr. Money Finance Co. (“First Citizens” and “Mr. Money”; collectively, “Defendants”) for retaliation and wrongful termination, in violation of Ohio and federal whistleblower laws, and Ohio public policy. Defendants counterclaimed, seeking sanctions, alleging frivolous conduct by Hill under Ohio Civ. R. 11, Ohio Rev. Code §2323.51 and Fed.

Plaintiff Tamie Luty, a former Saginaw police lieutenant, appeals from a jury verdict against her in this First Amendment retaliation and gender discrimination case, in which she claimed that the City of Saginaw and Chief of Police Gerald Cliff wrongfully demoted her because she refused to submit to polygraph testing during an internal investigation. On appeal, Luty contends that the district cour

Sally K. Harris put four claims before the district court: (1) termination in retaliation for the exercise of free speech, (2) sexual harassment, (3) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and (4) gender discrimination. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on all counts. Harris appeals the judgment of the district court with respect to her sex

Plaintiff Sharon Wharton appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, defendant The Gorman-Rupp Company, on her claims of age discrimination and retaliation for complaining about age and sex discrimination, under OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §§ 4112.14(A) and 4112.02(I). Wharton contends that Gorman-Rupp’s rejection of her application for the position of executive

Plaintiff-Appellant Karen Burnett appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendant-Appellee Southwestern Bell Telephone (“SWBT”) on her retaliatory discharge claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2611 et seq., and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.

Lakia Harris, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s opinion and order granting summary judgment to Crosshaven Properties, Inc., on her claim for retaliation filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e through 2000e-17. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Represented by counsel, Ms. Harris, an African-American, filed a complai

Plaintiff appeals a judgment after a jury verdict awarded him damages on his common-law wrongful constructive discharge claim. His complaint also alleged other employment-related claims against defendants, including a statutory wage claim and a statutory claim for discrimination based on race.

Plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant Wilsonville Ho

¶1 D efendant/appellant Cannon & Wendt Electric Co., Inc. (C&W) appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiff/appellee Tamula S. Bogard on Bogard’s claims of gender-based discrimination and retaliation. For the following reasons, we vacate the portion of the judgment awarding Bogard damages for mental pain and suffering and affirm the remainder of the judgment as modified herein.

FACTUAL AND

David D. Myers appeals from a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

I.

The parties are familiar with the facts and, therefore, they need not be recounted at length in this unpublished opinion. It is sufficient to note that the Huron County Engineer’s Office terminated Myers’s employment for sexually harassing a female coworker.

Plaintiff-Appellant Edwin I. Ejikeme brought this action against his former employer, the State of Ohio Department of Transportation (“ODOT”) and his former supervisor, Donald Violet. Ejikeme alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981

Plaintiff Jerry Abnet, a former long-term employee of defendant Unifab Corporation (Unifab), appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff’s age discrimination and retaliation claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 37.2202(a). Agr

Following his termination from employment at AT&T, plaintiff Sean Walsh filed suit against that company, alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 - 12213, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 - 2654, and various Ohio state law provisions and policies. In his complaint and amended complaint, Walsh asserted that AT&T had: fired hi

Darryl Jones, Michael Jones, Anthony Pasley, and Stephen Gibson are black firefighters employed by the City of Franklin, Tennessee. They filed separate complaints in August 2006, alleging that the City failed to promote them because of their race and failed to eliminate a racially hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that the hostile-w