Vimala Agrawal is a long-time employee of the Federal Aviation
Administration (“FAA”) at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. In 2007, she applied for seven different supervisory engineer
positions with the FAA, but was not selected for any of the positions. She
subsequently filed a complaint against the Department of Transportation alleging that

Plaintiff-appellant David Pierce, former Captain of the Cotuit, Massachusetts Fire Department, brought a complaint against the Department, the Fire Chief, and the Board of Fire Commissioners, alleging political discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, whistleblowing retaliation in violation of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, and tortious interference with cont

Tigist Ryals appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for American Airlines in her employment discrimination case. Finding that the district court correctly found that no genuine issue of material fact remained for trial and that judgment was proper as a matter of law, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Tigist Ryals filed an action for employment discrimination,

Jamilya Pina ("Pina") appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. ("TCP"), and TCP District Manager Jean Raymond ("Raymond"). Pursuing claims of employment discrimination and retaliation, Pina asserts that she was fired, harassed, and not rehired on the basis of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Mas

Respondent Hannon Security Services (“Hannon”) terminated appellant Jane Kay Dukowitz from her position as a security officer. In this appeal, Dukowitz presents two legal questions for our consideration. The first question is whether the public-policy exception to the employment-at-will rule applies to a termination resulting from an employee’s application for unemployment benefits. The seco

[¶1] Sagebrush Resources, LLC, appeals from a summary judgment dismissing with prejudice its action for trespass and for injunctive relief against Daryl, Larry, and Galen Peterson, determining the action was frivolous and not made in good faith, and awarding the Petersons $23,729 in attorney fees. Sagebrush argues the district court abused its discretion in deciding Sagebrush's claims were frivol

College of the Mainland appeals from an order denying its plea to the jurisdiction seeking dismissal of a retaliatory discharge suit filed under Chapter 554 of the Texas Government Code by former employee Douglas Meneke. We reverse the trial court’s order and render judgment that this suit must be dismissed because Meneke’s claim is barred by governmental immunity and the trial court therefore

The Texas Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) filed this restricted appeal, attacking the trial court’s entry of an expunction order in favor appellee Erika Denisse Gonzalez. DPS contends the face of the record shows the evidence was legally insufficient to support the expunction and the trial court did not comply with mandatory notice requirements. Because the face of the record reflects th

¶1 Michael W. Thompson appeals from his conviction on two counts of forcible sodomy, both first degree felonies. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-403(1) to -403(3) (LexisNexis 2003) (current version at Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-403 (LexisNexis Supp. 2013)). Among other things, he claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Specifically, Thompson asserts that trial counsel failed to i

Michael Thornbrough appeals from a judgment denying his mandamus petition, which sought to overturn his dismissal as an Assistant Director of Maintenance for the Western Placer Unified School District (District). On appeal, Thornbrough raises a number of issues, including principally claims of notice violations at the underlying administrative hearing, bias by the hearing officer, and the improper

Steven Smothers worked for Solvay Chemical, Inc. (“Solvay”) for 18 years until Solvay fired him, ostensibly because of a first-time safety violation and a dispute with a

-2-

coworker. Mr. Smothers contends the company’s true motivations were retaliation for taking medical leave from work, in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and discrimination on the basis

[¶1] Claire Trott appeals from the Superior Court’s (York County, Fritzsche, J.) grant of a summary judgment in favor of her former employer, H.D. Goodall Hospital, on Trott’s claim that the Hospital violated section 833(1)(C) of Maine’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), 26 M.R.S. §§ 831-840 (2012), when it discharged her for participating in a deposition in connection with a wrongf

[¶1] Phyllis Bradbury and David Gholson (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from an order of the Superior Court (Washington County, R. Murray, J.) denying their special motion to dismiss the counterclaims of First Perry Realty, LLC, CPM Constructors, and the City of Eastport (collectively, defendants) pursuant to Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute, 14 M.R.S. § 556 (2012).1 This appeal gives us the oppor

Appellant, April Dupree Adeshile, sued the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (―METRO‖) for retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA).1 On appeal, Adeshile argues that the trial court erred when it granted a directed verdict in favor of METRO. We affirm.

1 See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. ch. 21 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013).

2

FACTS AND PROC

In this first impression case, we hold that a defective special verdict form is subject to harmless error analysis.

Max Taylor, respondent, filed an action alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment against his former employer, Nabors Drilling USA, L.P., appellant. The action was brought pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.

A jury voted nine to three to award $238,328 to plaintiff Romeo Mendoza, who claimed he was fired in retaliation for reporting allegations of sexual harassment.

The court instructed the jury with the 2012 version of CACI No. 2430 and a special verdict form consistent therewith. Case law issued subsequent to the judgment leads us to conclude the court committed prejudicial error in doing so.

Robert Deleon (“Deleon”) appeals the dismissal of certain of his claims from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. The district court granted Defendants’ motion on the basis that Deleon did not suffer an “adverse employment action.” Deleon was laterally transferred from one department to another, which he alleges constituted an action giving rise to sus

Silver Oaks Apartments, Ltd. sued a former tenant, Enjoli Wynn, for unpaid rent and attorney’s fees. The trial court held a bench trial, and rendered judgment against Wynn for $3,185.00 in unpaid rent and $750.00 in attorney’s fees. No findings of fact were requested. On appeal, Wynn argues the trial court erred in calculating the amount of unpaid rent. Wynn further argues the trial court erre

Paul Tate sued Airflo Cooling Technologies, LLC on a wrongful termination theory claiming:

I

Plaintiff, Paul Tate, is a resident of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

II

Airflo Cooling Technologies, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company organized and existing under laws of the State of Oklahoma licensed to do business throughout the State.

III

For some time pr

This is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2013). Appellant Dallas County asserts a single issue challenging the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a suit brought by appellee Roy Logan under the Texas Whistleblower Act. See TEX. GOV’T CODE A

In the final days of his employment at K-Five Construction, Diego Gaines questioned the roadworthiness of two different trucks that he was assigned to drive. Management took steps to address Gaines’s concerns,

* Of the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

2 No. 12-2249

but the trucks never reached the level of safety sought by Gaines. On his last Friday, he

In this disability discrimination case, Laverne Johnson appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee.1 We AFFIRM.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 There is some dispute as to whether

Plaintiff Scott Matusick, who is white, was employed by the Erie
County Water Authority (ʺECWAʺ) during 2004 when, he claims, he was
assaulted, harassed, and ultimately terminated from his employment because of
a romantic relationship he had with an African‐American woman, Anita Starks ‐‐
now Anita Starks‐Matusick. Starks and Matusick met in 2003 but, according to
her

Appellant/Respondent Rhonda Gabriel ("Gabriel") brought claims of unlawful employment actions against her former employer, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Saint Joseph License, LLC ("Saint Joseph License"), as well as against alleged managers and/or owners Respondents/Cross-Appellants James Montee ("Montee"), Sandy Gutshall ("Gutshall"), and Ryan Williams ("Williams"). Ultimately, only one claim agains

Vickie Checotah sued Inverness Village on a wrongful termination theory claiming:

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma

2. Defendant is a domestic not for profit corporation doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma.

4. As