This appeal arises from a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by Thornton G. Sanders against his former employer, North American Bus Industries, Inc. ("NABI"). Sanders alleges that NABI defrauded the United States by underpaying duties on bus frames that NABI imported from Hungary and by falsely certifying that the buses that NABI manufactured using those frames were eligible for fed

Heritage Constructors, Inc., sued the city (and officials) of Greenwood, Arkansas, for retaliation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heritage alleged the city denied it a contract in 2005, because it exercised the right to petition by initiating arbitration on an earlier contract with the city. The district court1 granted summary judgment to the city. Having

Tracy Trigillo, the manager of procurement at the Illinois Department of Corrections, disagreed with some of the department’s procurement practices. She raised her concerns to her supervisors, sought guidance from outside agencies, and even reported what she thought was misconduct to the FBI.

But her disagreements with her supervisors proved more enduring than her job—when her term of e

Plaintiff Ramona Hillman appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of her claims against her former employer, Shelby County Government.

Hillman alleges retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The district court dismissed her claim after determining that they were barred by issue preclusion because a state agency had previously rul

Plaintiff, Christina Howington, appeals the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants Quality Restaurant Concepts, LLC (“QRC”) and Tyler Kirk with respect to Plaintiff’s sexual harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Graham
(“Graham”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Best Buy
Stores, L.P. (“Best Buy”). Graham, a former Best Buy employee, seeks relief in connection with his
termination and events that transpired soon after. Graham appeals the dismissal of his claims of
racially discriminatory termination, retaliati

Dennis Verhoff appeals the district court’s
decision to grant defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on his claim
for disability-discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12101. Time
Warner cross-appeals the district court’s decision to grant Verhoff’s motion for summary judgment
on his claim for interference with his ri

Dennis Verhoff appeals the district court’s decision to grant defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on his claim for disability-discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12101. Time Warner cross-appeals the district court’s decision to grant Verhoff’s motion for summary judgment on his claim for interference with his rights under the F

Elizabeth J. Louviere and Kevon M. Louviere appeal the summary judgment granted in favor of Hearst Corporation, Hearst Newspapers Partnership, II, L.P., d/b/a Beaumont Enterprise, Craig Stark, and David Pero. The Louvieres contend the trial court erred in granting judgment for the defendants on Elizabeth Louviere's Sabine Pilot claim of wrongful discharge. See Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 6

Appellant, Lorenzo Gomez, challenges the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees, Vertex Aerospace, LLC ("Vertex"), The Boeing Company ("Boeing"), and McDonnell Douglas Corporation ("McDonnell Douglas"). Gomez sued appellees, his former employers, alleging employment discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing all of Gomez's claims against all defendants. On ap

Appellants, Dr. Richard and Wanda Gott, appeal the trial court’s judgement dismissing their claims against Rice Consolidated Independent School District (“RCISD”), Superintendent Michael Lanier, Betty Schiurring, Joe Lee Perez, Vivian Spanihel, Carolyn Baird (collectively, “the Individual Defendants,” and collectively with RCISD, the “School Defendants”). Footnote The trial court dis

Because a crack formed in the side wall of their new motor home, Robert and Kathleen Knowles sued Fleetwood Motorhomes of California, Inc. But, because the Knowles had previously sued Fleetwood about that motor home, the district court by summary judgment swept away the Knowles' lawsuit by broadly ruling the doctrine of res judicata barred their warranty and consumer claims. This doctrine is somet

This case requires us to determine whether, following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the inquiry into the protected status of speech in a First Amendment retaliation claim remains a question of law properly decided at summary judgment or instead now presents a mixed question of fact and law. Plaintiff Robert Posey sued Lake Pend Oreille School D

Donald J. Dibble is a former federal excepted service
18 technician with the New York Air National Guard (“Guard”) who was
19 denied reenlistment. Alleging that this denial was retaliation
20 for Dibble’s exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights,
21 including his advocacy as a union representative, Dibble applied
22 for administrative relief from the Air Force

Plaintiff Dawn Griffis, a certified nurse practitioner, appeals from the superior court’s judgment in favor of her former employer, defendant Cedar Hill Health Care Corporation (Cedar Hill). In that order, the superior court concluded that plaintiff had failed to meet her burden of proving that her termination was (1) causally related to activities protected by Vermont’s Whistleblower Act, a

On June 28, 2004, appellant, Lucia Enica (“Enica” or “Appellant”), a registered nurse employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, brought suit against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“VA” or “Appellee”), alleging that the VA failed to accommodate her disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791 and 794(a), and that, after she sought accommodations an

Section 220 of the California Education Code1 prohibits discrimination based on a number of protected characteristics, including sexual orientation, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution "that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid." In this case, we are called on to determine: (1) the elements o

Rita Miller, a former employee of the Clinton County Probation office, brought this civil rights action against the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County, Pennsylvania, Richard Saxton, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Miller=s complaint asserts that Judge Saxton terminated her employment in violation of her First Amendment right to free speech, and her Fourteenth Amendment r

The Department of Justice announced today that it has entered into a consent decree with Spartanburg County, S.C., that if approved by the U.S. District Court, will resolve allegations that the County engaged in employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, col

Plaintiff, Gregory Smith, sued his employer, the Waukegan Park District, in the circuit court of Lake County, alleging the District discharged him in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The District filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2–619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(9) (West 2002)), claiming immunity pursuant to the Local Gov

Plaintiff-Appellant Louis D. Brown III (“Brown”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee City of Cleveland (“Defendant” or “Cleveland”) and the dismissal of his allegations of employment discrimination on the basis of his sex, age, disability, retaliation for the exercise of his rights under the First Amendment, hostile work environment,

Professor Mara Sabinson challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to her employer, Dartmouth College, on her claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (2000) et seq., under the federal age discrimination statute, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (2000) et seq., and for retaliation. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, here Sabinson.

Robert Welch, a police officer in the Town of Stoughton (the Town), filed this lawsuit against the Chief of Police, the former Police Chief, two members of the Town’s Board of Selectmen (the Board) and the Town, alleging that the defendants impermissibly retaliated against him for exercising his rights under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution. He also sought relief under a state whi

Plaintiff, John Thigpen, appeals the trial court’s order setting aside a jury verdict for plaintiff and granting the defendant, United Parcel Services, Inc. (UPS,) a new trial. The trial court granted the new trial after determining that it had erroneously admitted irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial evidence, which resulted in an excessive verdict. Because we conclude that the trial court did n

Tammi J. Carter, the plaintiff in an action for employment discrimination against Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA), appeals the circuit court's order that dismissed her complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA).1 Ms. Carter alleged that HMA had unlawfully terminated her in retaliation for filing a charge of gender and