A former employee of a state agency filed suit against the agency asserting various claims, including retaliation claims under Title VII,[2] section 21.055 of the Texas Labor Code,[3] and sections 1981 and 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code.[4] The trial court denied the agency’s request that these retaliation claims be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the empl

Crossed wires caused an on-site electrical transformer to blow, necessitating repairs and the use of a temporary transformer while the blown transformer was out of commission. The manufacturing plant owner sued its electrical services company for breach of contract and breach of warranty. The trial court rendered judgment on the jury’s verdict favoring the owner. On appeal, Powell Electrical Sys

Plaintiff-Appellant Wythe Crowe appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee ADT Security Services, Inc. (“ADT”) on his claims for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Background

Because this matter was resolved on summary judgment, we

Dr. Penny M. Wilkie filed suit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("the Department"), alleging, inter alia, that the Department violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, Dr. Wilkie asserted that the Department violated her rights to (1) be free of sexual harassment and gender discrimination; (2) be free of a hostile work envir

Appellant Kimberly Hoyle presents for our review two orders of the district court: (1) its grant of Appellee Freightliner, L.L.C.’s motion to strike from her opposition to Freightliner’s motion for summary judgment the declaration of a belatedly-disclosed witness, and (2) its grant of summary judgment in favor of Freightliner on Hoyle’s claims of hostile work environment sex discrimination,

Plaintiff–appellant Ricky Allen Taylor appeals the district court’s decision dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On appeal, Taylor argues that the district court’s determination that his § 1983 action is barred by the favorable termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey and Wilkinson v. Do

The plaintiff in this case, Cheryl Rose Kuslick, claims that the defendant, Michigan State Police Trooper James Roszczewski, fabricated a claim in a sworn affidavit that she frustrated the execution of a search warrant in order to obtain a warrant for her arrest on the charge of obstruction. Roszczewski maintains that he is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity, though he was d

The plaintiff, Phyllis E. Gillians, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants1 on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of the parties’ employment in the Stamford office of the department of children and families (department). The plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly determined that she failed to allege

In these consolidated cases, the defendant, J. Robert Smyjunas, Jr., appeals the jury verdict against him in favor of the plaintiff, J & M Lumber and Construction Company, Inc. (J & M), and J & M appeals the decision of the Superior Court (Vaughan, J.) to award prejudgment interest from the date of J & M’s 2008 writ of summons. We affirm.

I. Background

The record reveals the follow

Plaintiff Diana Aguiar worked as a certified medication aid (CMA) at the defendant Bartlesville Care Center (the Center). During the course of her employment, she claims that she was sexually harassed by a resident. Following her termination for verbally abusing the resident, she filed suit under Title VII for hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation. Ms. Aguiar appeals from the

Appellants are five former employees of Commercial Coating Services International (“CCSI”) who claim that CCSI supervisors created a hostile work environment by subjecting Appellants to harassment on the basis of their race, and that they were fired in retaliation for complaining about this harassment.

The district court granted summary judgment to CCSI on both the hostile work enviro

Michael S. Adams appeals from the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina awarding summary judgment to the sixteen defendants (collectively "Defendants"), each of whom is affiliated with Adams’ employer, the University of North Carolina-Wilmington ("UNCW" or "the University").1 Adams brought three claims against the Defendants alleging religious and speech-based

Quincey Gerald Keeler appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendant Wesley Medical Center, named as “HCI Wesley” in the complaint, on claims the court construed as breach of contract, hostile work environment, negligence, and invasion of privacy. The district court certified its judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). We have jurisd

Plaintiff Carol Kline sued her former employer the Utah Anti-Discrimination Division (UALD) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. Kline appeals the district court’s grant of UALD’s motion for summary judgment on her claims for hostile work environment, sex discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

Plaintiff Emetria Wheeler appeals from the district court’s order granting defendants BNSF Railway Company’s (BNSF’s) and Mike Harding’s joint motion for summary judgment on Wheeler’s claims of gender discrimination, race discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Exercising jurisdiction pursua

In this appeal, we decide whether a federal government employee’s state law tort claims against a labor union are completely preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 2301–2305 (West 1994 & Supp. 2010), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7154 (West 1996 & Supp. 2010) (West 2010). Finding no complete preemption under the circumstances presented in this case, we reverse and remand

Petitioner Mark J. Hoffman claims that his employer, NetJets Aviation, Inc., violated 49 U.S.C. § 42121 (“AIR 21”) by denying him appointment to the position of initial operating experience (IOE) instructor in retaliation for his reporting aviation safety and/or FAA compliance issues to the company and to the FAA, activities that are protected from retaliation under AIR 21. Because substantia

Kenneth O. Kennedy was embroiled in a zoning dispute about the expansion of a strip mall next to his home. In May 2005, he approached Joseph Schutzman, a police officer and building inspector, in the Villa Hills city building. Refusing to speak to Kennedy, Schutzman left the city building.

Kennedy told nearby city workers in the building that “that son of a bitch [Schutzman] broke all of

Defendant Mercy Memorial Hospital declined to promote plaintiff Prem Bhama, an older male of Indian national origin, in favor of a younger, female, Caucasian applicant. Mercy later terminated Bhama for allegedly engaging in unsanitary work practices and inappropriate patient care. Bhama claims that Mercy’s actions constituted discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and

This appeal involves the application of the Fourteenth Amendment‘s Due Process Clause to the suspension of policemen in Pennsylvania. Michael Schmidt, an officer in Pennsylvania‘s Capitol Police, claims that appellees, senior officers of the Capitol Police and officials of Pennsylvania‘s Department of General Services, violated his due process rights when they failed to provide him a hearing

Charity L. Wierman sued her former employer, Casey’s Marketing Company and Casey’s General Stores, Inc. (“Casey’s”). She asserts pregnancy discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2000e-17) and the Missouri Human Rights Act (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.055) (“MHRA”). She also alleges retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical

In this case we must consider the First Amendment rights of a speech and language therapist working as a state contractor. Footnote Navigating the shoals of the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), has proven to be tricky business, and particularly so in the context of a motion to dismiss, because the inquiry is so highly fact intensive and contex

Appellant Robert D’Ausilio sued respondent City of Alhambra (City) for civil rights violations and then settled the case with the City. The City then sued appellant for breach of the settlement agreement and declaratory relief. Appellant moved to strike the declaratory relief claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the “anti-SLAPP statute.”1 The trial court denied the motion and

Sarah Morrison appeals from a post-judgment order denying her motion for attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1942.5 and Government Code section 12989.2 after the parties had resolved their dispute by settlement. We will affirm the order.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 8, 2007, Morrison signed a lease and moved into an apartment at Vineyard Creek Apartments in Santa

Plaintiff-Appellant Larry D. Hysten appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (“BNSF”). Mr. Hysten argues that he has presented circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that BNSF wrongfully discharged him in retaliation for exercising his rights under the Federal Emp