Plaintiff Dean Martin filed a complaint alleging six causes of action deriving from purported racial and age discrimination and retaliation by defendants Inland Empire Utilities Agency (agency) and its CEO (chief executive officer),1 Richard Atwater (collectively, “defendants”), for plaintiff‟s refusal to take punitive action against another employee who had made similar allegations. Plainti

Appellant, Chandrashekhar B. Thanedar, challenges the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellee, Donna Independent School District (“DISD”), in a suit Thanedar filed under the Texas Whistleblower Act. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 554.001–.010 (West 2004). In his suit, Thanedar alleged, among other things, that DISD, his employer, suspended him with pay and later terminated his employm

The Texas Workforce Commission (the “Commission”) appeals the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. The Commission contends the order is in error, and that former Commission employee, Ms. Maria Elena Olivas’ suit for retaliatory discharge should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

Ms. Olivas worked for the Commission from June 24, 1987 un

¶1 Paul Dan Hicks appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of Tulsa Dynaspan. Also challenged is the trial court's order striking plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages from his petition.

¶2 Hicks sought recovery for retaliatory discharge under 85 O.S. 1981 §§ 5 & 6. The trial judge found that punitive damages cannot be recovered in actions brought under 85 O.S. 1981 §§ 5 & 6 ,

In Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186, 1189 (2011), the Supreme Court addressed “the circumstances under which an employer may be held liable for employment discrimination based on the discriminatory animus of an employee who influenced, but did not make, the ultimate employment decision.” Today we consider, in light of Staub, whether the City of Philadelphia, the employer at issue, has d

Everett Cox III and Nan Ping Peng, parents of a middle
school student, appeal from a judgment of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Gwin,
J., sitting by designation) dismissing on summary judgment
their § 1983 complaint against Warwick Valley Central School
District and Principal John Kolesar. Cox and Peng appeal
1 the dismissal of: [1]

¶1 Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his suit for retaliatory discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court held that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we affirm.

¶2 Plaintiff had been employed by Defendant John Zink Company for approximately nine years when he sustai

We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Barron v. Labor Finders of South Carolina, 384 S.C. 21, 682 S.E.2d 271 (Ct. App. 2009). We affirm as modified.

FACTS

A. Employment History

Petitioner began working for respondent in respondent's Charleston office around 1990. During petitioner's employment, respondent planned to open a second office locatio

[¶1] Eli A. Blackhouse appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Augusta, Soucy, J.) dismissing his complaint for protection from abuse, 19-A M.R.S. § 4003 (2010), for his failure to appear at the final hearing. On appeal, Blackhouse contends that the court erred by dismissing his complaint without first considering his request for reasonable accommodation of his claimed disability. We agre

Surina Dixon sued Texas Southern University on civil rights violation theories under Title IX and Title VII claiming gender discrimination and retaliation. She was hired by TSU and then fired within three months.

The defenses asserted by TSU are not available.

Natalie Dellinger commenced this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") against Science Applications International Corporation which, she alleges, retaliated against her, in violation of the FLSA’s antiretaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), by refusing to hire her after learning that she had sued her former employer under the FLSA.

The district court granted Sc

Alonzo Bradley sued Pitney Bowes, Inc. and SupportKids, Inc. d/b/a CSE Child Enforcement contending that SupportKids wrongfully attempted to collect child support from him based on a void Louisiana order and that Pitney Bowes wrongfully garnished his wages based on that order. Appellant also alleged that Pitney Bowes had fired him from his area sales executive position because of a separate lawsu

Relenthis Blakley filed suit against Schlumberger Technology Corporation ("Schlumberger"), alleging that Schlumberger wrongfully denied (or delayed) her promotion and, subsequently, wrongfully terminated her. She asserted several claims for various forms of discrimination and retaliation under federal law, in addition to state-law tort claims. The district court2 granted Schlumberger's motion to d

After oral argument on appellant’s motion for rehearing, the opinion of October 6, 2010, is vacated and the following is substituted in its place: The plaintiff Alvarado was employed as a maintenance person in a commercial office building operated by the appellee, Bayshore Grove Management, LLC. After he was discharged allegedly for excessive tardiness and absenteeism, he brought this two count

Plaintiff Corby Burus appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing her demotion and termination claims in this employment-discrimination case.

We AFFIRM, adopting the district court’s opinion, Burus v. Wellpoint Cos., Inc., No. 5:08-154- KKC, 2010 WL 1253089 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 25, 2010), with a minor exception pertinent to the demotion claim. We add discussion on c

Appellant challenges the grant of summary judgment for her employer when her boss forcibly kissed her, fondled her leg, propositioned her, asked sexually explicit questions, described sexual activities he wished to perform, and then, after she spurned the advances and filed a harassment complaint, fired her. Because those allegations are sufficient to make out claims of hostile work environment, q

10 Following a jury trial in the United States District
11 Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J.),
12 plaintiff Christopher Millea won partial victory on his
13 claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). He and
14 the defendant, Metro-North Railroad Co. (“Metro-North”),
15 cross-appeal. Millea argues that, on his unsuccessful
16 retaliation clai

In this wrongful termination case, KB Home of South Carolina, Inc. and Jeff Meyer[1] (collectively Appellants) appeal a circuit court judgment denying their motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, Appellants contend the circuit court erred in: (1) determining the validity of an arbitration clause contained in Lonnie Davis's employment application when that threshold determination was arguably fo

Petitioner began working for respondent in respondent's Charleston office around 1990. During petitioner's employment, respondent planned to open a second office location in the Charleston area and informed petitioner she would be promoted to regional sales manager for both Charleston locations. In 2004, petitioner signed an agreement acknowledging her status as an at-will employee and setting h

Roman Cuevas and Jeffrey Cuevas sued Wentworth Group on hostile environment and retaliation theories claiming that they were subjected to racially and ethnically improper insults at the hands of Defendant's executives and were retaliated against by Defendant when they complained. Roman Cuevas was a regional vice-president and Jeffrey Cuevas was a portfolio manager with Defendant which manages com

This case requires us to decide whether 42 U.S.C. § 1981 retaliation claims are governed by the four-year statute of limitations applicable to claims “arising under an Act of Congress enacted” after December 1, 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 1658, or by the personal injury statute of limitations of the forum state.

Section 1981 retaliation claims were foreclosed by Patterson v. McLean Credit Union

* Plaintiff, Dr. Deborah Harris, appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant Dallas Independent School District (D.I.S.D.) on her claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., which permits individuals who work for covered employers to take temporary leave for a “serious health condition,” 29 U.S.C. § 2612. We AFFIRM.

In this action arising under the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiffs Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., Gregg Cunningham, and Kevin Murray appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claims against Defendant Janet Napolitano, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Defendant Eric H. Holder, Jr., in his capacity as Attorney General

Debra Parks, the Appellant, filed a one-count complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City alleging that she had been “wrongful[ly] terminat[ed] . . . in violation of public policy” from her job at Alpharma, Inc., the Appellee, a pharmaceutical company incorporated in Delaware, which had been headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey until being acquired in November of 2008 by King Pharmac

This appeal requires us to consider the contours of the ministerial exception, under the first amendment to the United States constitution,1 to Connecticut courts’ subject matter jurisdiction over certain employment related claims brought against religious institutions. The plaintiff, Patricia Dayner, brought this action against the defendants, the Archdiocese of Hartford (archdiocese) and Fathe