Alexander Lidlow v. International Rectifier Corp. |
The novel question presented in this case is whether, under a conflict of laws principle known as the internal affairs doctrine, California law or foreign law applies to a claim brought by an officer of a foreign corporation for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. We hold that under the circumstances alleged here, specifically where a foreign corporation has removed or constructive $0 (05-23-2012 - CA) |
Patricia Tarle v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. |
Plaintiff and appellant Patricia Tarle appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants and respondents Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (collectively, Kaiser), Dilip Sedani and Wayne Rupnik in this employment discrimination action. Tarle contends the trial court erred in sustaining defendants‘ evidentiary objections to much of the evidence she sub $0 (05-22-2012 - CA) |
Susan Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corporation |
When Susan Lewis filed this lawsuit in 2007, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibited discrimination “because of” the disability of an employee. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), Pub. L. No. 101-336, Title I, § 102, 104 Stat. 327, 331 (1990) (amended 1991). When it came time to present her ADA claim to a jury, each party urged the district court to put a different gloss on this la $0 (05-25-2012 - TN) |
Darrel Smith v. Denise Bray |
In most employment discrimination cases that arise in the private sector, the defendants are the employers themselves, most often corporations or other business organizations. In this case of alleged race discrimination and retaliation, however, the employer has gone through bankruptcy and so cannot be sued for relief. The plaintiff in this case has sought relief from two individuals who worked fo $0 (05-24-2012 - IL) |
Charles L. Wilson v. City of Central City, Kentucky |
This case presents the question of whether Kentucky's Whistleblower Act protects city employees. The Muhlenberg Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the City of Central City, Kentucky ("Central City"), although that court did not address the issue before us. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that cities are not "employers" under the Whistleblower Act, and therefore are not subject to $0 (04-26-2012 - KY) |
Cynthia Healey v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. |
{¶1} Appellant, Cynthia Healey, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms. |
Kenneth Kidwell v. Joseph S. Eisenhauer |
Over the course of six months, Appellant Kenneth Kidwell, a sixteen-year veteran of the Danville, Illinois police department, publicly criticized several departmental officials at two police officers’ union meetings. Roughly during that same time period, Kidwell also committed several violations of departmental policy and was punished accordingly with, among other things, a written reprimand and $0 (05-23-2012 - IL) |
Lisa Meade v. Shangri-La Partnership and Business T/A & D/B/A Children's Manor Montessori School |
This is a civil action, authorized by a State statute and by the Howard County Code, in which the plaintiff seeks damages for a school’s alleged discrimination because of the plaintiff’s handicap. We issued a writ of certiorari in the case to consider whether discrimination because of a “handicap,” within the meaning of the Maryland statutory provisions, should be construed “strictly to $0 (01-26-2012 - MD) |
David Schmidt v. Celgene Corporation |
Plaintiff David Schmidt appeals from the dismissal of a complaint charging his employer, Celgene Corporation, and one of Celgene's customers, CVS/Caremark Corporation (Caremark), with violations of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14. Schmidt filed the complaint well beyond CEPA's one-year limitation period, N.J.S.A. 34:19-5, while he had a breach of contract $0 (05-09-2012 - NJ) |
Joseph W. Sullivan v. William F. Harnisch |
We held in Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp. (58 NY2d 293 [1983]), and have several times reaffirmed, that New York common law does not recognize a cause of action for the wrongful discharge of an at-will employee. We decline in this case to make an exception to that rule for the compliance officer of a hedge fund. |
Mary Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group |
Plaintiff Mary Fitzsimons appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (CEP) on her complaint for unlawful retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900 et seq.1 She contends the trial court erred in concluding that a partner does not have standing to assert a claim for retaliation under the FEH $0 (05-16-2012 - CA) |
Guincey Gerald Keeler v. Aramark |
Plaintiff Quincey Gerald Keeler appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his employer, Aramark Healthcare Support Services, LLC (Aramark) and his supervisor, Larry Gengler. He challenges the district court’s * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this $0 (05-18-2012 - KS) |
Cecil Young v. City of Bridgeport |
The plaintiff, Cecil Young, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the city of Bridgeport. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered judgment for the defendant on the basis of its factual finding that the plaintiff was not the defendant’s employee. We agree with the court’s finding that the plaintiff was not the defendant’s e $0 (05-17-2012 - CT) |
Guillermo Herrera v. Churchill McGee, LLC |
Guillermo Herrera filed this lawsuit against his former employer, Churchill McGee, LLC, and its two owners (collectively, “Churchill McGee”), alleging discrimination and retaliation under state and federal law. The district court dismissed Herrera’s claims on the ground that Herrera had previously filed an administrative complaint alleging discrimination with a county human rights commission $0 (05-16-2012 - KY) |
G. Berry Schumann v. Dianon Systems, Inc. |
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 126 S. Ct. 1951, 164 L. Ed. 2d 689 (2006), the United States Supreme Court concluded ‘‘that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for [f]irst [a]mendment1 purposes, and the [c]onstitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.’’ The principal i $0 (05-01-2012 - CT) |
Carmen I. Perez-Dickinson v. City of Bridgeport |
The plaintiff, Carmen I. Perez-Dickson, brought this action claiming that the defendants, the board of education of the city of Bridgeport (board), Henry R. Kelly, the former assistant superintendent of the Bridgeport public schools (school district), and Daniel Shamas,1 the former acting superintendent of the school district, disciplined her for exercising her rights guaranteed by the first amend $0 (05-01-2012 - CT) |
Pat Oman v. Portland Public Schools |
We must decide, among other things, whether a parent may bring a claim for nominal damages under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. |
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Rhonda Falgoust |
In this interlocutory appeal, a school district challenges a trial court’s order denying the school district’s plea to the jurisdiction in an action brought by a former employee against the school district for retaliation under the Texas Whistleblower Act. |
Edward Melia v. Zenhire, Inc. |
In April, 2007, the plaintiff, Edward Melia, a Massachusetts resident, entered into an executive employment contract with the defendant Zenhire, Inc. (Zenhire). A forum selection clause dictated that all disputes arising out of the contract or the employment relationship were to be resolved in courts situated in Erie County, New York, Zenhire's principal place of business. Zenhire allegedly failed $0 (05-08-2012 - MA) |
Edward McDonald v. City of Saint Paul |
Edward C. McDonald appeals the district court’s1 order granting summary judgment to defendants—the City of St. Paul (the City) and Mayor Christopher Coleman (the mayor)—on various claims arising from McDonald’s unsuccessful application for appointment as director of the City’s Department of Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity, as well as denial of his motion to compel various dep $0 (05-10-2012 - MN) |
Melvin Hayes v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co. |
Melvin Hayes appeals from entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Vermeer Manufacturing Company. Hayes brought suit against his former employer, Vermeer, for retaliation and violation of his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FLMA) after Hayes was terminated for repeated tardiness allegedly caused by side effects of medication taken for his mental health condition. The distric $0 (05-09-2012 - IA) |
Tom Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, LLC |
Plaintiff Tom Seeger appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., LLC (“CBT”), and dismissing his claim that CBT violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, when it terminated his employment on the ground of disability fraud. Seeger took FMLA leave and concurrent paid leave under CBT’ $0 (05-08-2012 - KY) |
Remcey Peeples v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. |
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in its own name against CRST Van Expedited, Inc. (CRST), alleging that CRST subjected Monika Starke "and approximately 270 similarly situated female employees" to a hostile work environment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Starke and Remcey Jeunenne Peeples intervened i $0 (05-08-2012 - IA) |
Martha Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace |
Defendant Charles “Pete” Caw (“Caw”), Assistant Chief of Police in the City of Mountlake Terrace Police Department, appeals from the denial of qualified immunity in Plaintiff Martha Karl’s (“Karl”) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation. The district court held it was clearly established in December 2008 that a supervisor cannot retaliate against a public emplo $0 (05-08-2012 - WA) |
Rodger J. Hartnett v. Diane Crosier |
Rodger Hartnett, a former employee of the San Diego County Office of Education (Education Office), sued several Education Office employees (individual defendants) alleging they retaliated against him in violation of Education Code section 44113, subdivision (a)1 (section 44113(a)). Among other relief, Hartnett sought punitive damages and attorneys fees under section 44114, subdivision (c) (section $0 (04-26-2012 - CA) |
Next Page |