EEOC v. Schwan's Home Service |
Schwan’s Home Service appeals the district court’s1 order enforcing an administrative subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) while investigating a charge of gender discrimination against Schwan’s. We affirm. |
Samantha Sanches v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District |
Samantha Sanches appeals summary judgment on her claims of sex discrimination and retaliation under 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (“title IX”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Reduced to its essentials, this is nothing more than a dispute, fueled by a disgruntled cheerleader mom, over whether her daughter should have made the squad. It is a petty squabble, masquerading as a civil rights matter, that has no place $0 (07-13-2011 - TX) |
Carleen Black v. Pan American Laboratories, LLC |
Carleen Black sued her former employer, Pamlab, alleging various sex discrimination claims and a retaliatory termination claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), TEXAS LAB. CODE §§ 21.001-21.556. A jury rendered a verdict in Black’s favor and awarded her $3,450,000 in back pay and compensatory and punitive damages. Applying Title $0 (07-11-2011 - TX) |
Bruce Whitman v. City of Burton |
In this action under the Whistleblower’s Protection Act (WPA), a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Madhuri Patel v. Kent School District |
A.H., a developmentally disabled high-school student, had several sexual encounters with another developmentally disabled student in a school bathroom. Her mother alleges these encounters were the result of the school’s failure to properly supervise A.H. We must decide whether the mother, individually and on behalf of A.H., has a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against A.H.’s $0 (07-11-2011 - WA) |
Julie Mahony v. Universal Pediatric Services |
Julie Mahony appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment dismissing claims of wrongful termination against her former employer, Universal Pediatric Services, Inc. (“UPSI”); S. Tucker Anderson, its president and chief executive officer; and Connie Freeman, its principal owner. Mahony appeals only the dismissal of the claim that she was wrongfully terminated in violation of Iowa pu $0 (07-11-2011 - IA) |
Paul Palmerin v. Johnson County, Kansas Board of County Commissioners |
Paul Palmerin sued Johnson County on national origin discrimination and retaliation theories theories claiming that he was called a "wetback" for reporting discriminatory conduct in the Johnson County Waste Water Department. |
Greg Koon v. Sedgwick County, Kansas |
Plaintiff Greg Koon appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Sedgwick County. The court concluded Mr. Koon failed to establish a triable issue as to whether his transfer to a new work site was pretext for retaliation. Because Mr. Koon’s pretext argument fails to address the specific reasons proffered by the County for its decision to transfer, we affirm. |
Jack Bell v. Dallas County |
In this Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) lawsuit, Plaintiff-Appellant Jack Bell (“Bell”) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Bell’s former employer, Defendant-Appellee Dallas County (“County”). Bell argues that the district court erred by denying his summary judgment motion and by concluding that the County had not interfered with his FMLA rights and ha $0 (07-08-2011 - TX) |
County of Kern v. David F. Jadwin |
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase ". . . used in logic to describe the fallacy of thinking that a happening which follows another must be its result . . . ." (Webster's New World Dict. (2d College ed. 1989) p. 1113, col. 1.) In other words, the propinquity of two events does not necessarily establish cause and effect. The key word here is "necessarily." County of Kern (County) argues th $0 (07-05-2011 - CA) |
Emeritus Corporation v. Lillian Blanco |
We decide today that an employee may pursue a private cause of action for retaliatory discharge against an assisted living facility. Emeritus Corporation appeals from a judgment in excess of $134,000 plus post-judgment interest in favor of former employee, Lillian Blanco. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. |
Adrienne Gallien v. Houston Independent School District |
Adrienne Gallien sued her former employer, Houston Independent School District (“HISD”), for breach of contract and for violation of the Texas Whistleblower Act. [1] The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of HISD, concluding that Gallien had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit. In two issues, Gallien appeals the summary judgment. |
Eugene Stansberry v. Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation |
After being fired, Eugene Stansberry sued his former employer, Air Wisconsin Airlines, alleging “association discrimination” under the Americans with Disabilities Act. While Stansberry is not disabled, his wife suffers from Polyarteritis Nodosa, a rare and debilitating autoimmune disorder. |
Ivis W. Johnson v. City of Houston-Fire Department |
Ivis W. Johnson, acting pro se, appeals the magistrate judge’s judgment granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Johnson’s claims of racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Johnson argues that the magistrate judge erred in determining that he failed to show the reasons articulated by the defendant for his suspension $0 (07-06-2011 - TX) |
Angel Medina v. District of Columbia |
Angel Medina is a captain with the Metropolitan Police Department (―MPD‖ or ―Department‖). Medina filed a ten-count complaint in the district court charging the District of Columbia with racial and ethnic discrimination, and retaliation against him because of a series of discrimination complaints he filed against MPD. Although the jury heard five of Medina‘s claims, it found for Medina o $0 (07-01-2011 - DC) |
Jeanette Jackson v. United Parcel Service |
Jeanette Jackson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment discrimination action against United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. We affirm. |
Roberthenry Davis, Sr. v. Time Warner Cable of Southeastern Wisconsin, L.P. |
Roberthenry Davis, Sr., an African American salesperson, was fired from Time Warner Cable of Southeastern Wisconsin (“Time Warner”) after his white boss concluded that Davis violated Time Warner’s zero-tolerance Employee Guidelines by processing a noncommissionable transaction as a commissionable one. Davis complained about his termination to Time Warner’s human resources department and wa $0 (07-05-2011 - WI) |
Galen D. Barker v. Halliburton Company |
In this appeal, we consider whether the district court erred by concluding that Plaintiff-Appellant Galen Barker could not, as a matter of law, maintain a loss of consortium claim because the claim arose from a civil rights violation against his wife. We agree with the district court’s conclusion and AFFIRM that court’s summary judgment order. |
Julie Pucci v. Mark Somers |
Former Court Administrator Julie Pucci sued Judge Mark Somers on civil rights and retaliation theories claiming that he discriminated against her because of her gender and retaliated against her when she complained. |
Aaron Smeigh v. Johns Manville, Inc. |
Aaron Smeigh brings this diversity suit against his former employer, Johns Manville (JM), for retaliatory discharge and civil conversion under Indiana law. He alleges that JM wrongfully terminated his employment for filing a workers’ compensation claim and unlawfully retained his personal property after his termination. |
Robert L. Campbell v. Husky Hogs, LLC |
This court considers for the first time whether a common-law tort for retaliatory discharge may be brought against an employer when an employee claims he or she was fired for filing a wage claim under the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA), K.S.A. 44-313 et seq. The district court dismissed the lawsuit because there was no previously recognized exception to the terminable-at-will doctrine for discharg $0 (05-26-2011 - KS) |
Angela King, M.D. v. University Healthcare System, L.C. |
Dr. Angela King sued her former employer, University Healthcare System, L.C. (“UHS”), for sex discrimination, retaliation, breach of oral contract, violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), and violation of the Louisiana Wage Payment Statute (“LWPS”). A jury found that UHS did not discriminate against Dr. King because of her sex, illegally retaliate against her, or breach an oral contrac $0 (06-28-2011 - LA) |
James Diaz v. Tyson Fresh Meats |
The question is whether this Iowa-law case alleging disability retaliation was for the jury to decide. The District Court** granted summary judgment for Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. James Diaz appeals. He made many federal and state discrimination claims in the District Court, but all have dropped out except one: he contends Tyson retaliated against him for seeking accommodation for a disabled subordin $0 (06-28-2011 - IA) |
Stephanie Williams v. CSX Transportation Company, Inc. |
Plaintiff, Stephanie Williams, sued her employer, CSX Transportation Company, Inc. (“CSX”), for allegedly subjecting her to both racially and sexually hostile work environments. The district court held that Williams failed to file a document that meets the test for a “charge” with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on her claim of a sexually hostile work environment and, thus, fai $0 (06-28-2011 - TN) |
Philip L. Young v. Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc. |
Mr. Young challenges the propriety of the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc. He asserts that Tri-State is estopped from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense because of assurances allegedly made by Tri-State’s counsel and relied upon by his attorney. Because a genuine dispute exists as to the facts underlying Mr. Young’s equitable-estoppe $0 (06-21-2011 - MO) |
Next Page |