Plaintiff-appellant Azell Malone appeals the district court's grant of a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). Footnote Before the motion was granted, a jury had entered a verdict and award in favor of Malone and against defendants-appellees Lockheed Martin Corporation and Carl Supancic. The jury found the defendants guilty of employment di

Plaintiff Ronald Atanus commenced this tort action against defendants American Airlines, Inc. (American); Patrick Harrington, an employee of American; and S&C Electric Co. (S&C), which is not a party to this appeal. In his fourth amended complaint, plaintiff claimed that American committed “intentional interference with prospective advantages” and that Harrington committed “intentional inter

Plaintiff-appellant Donna L. McGullam appeals pro se 16 from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 17 Eastern District of New York (Hurley, J.), granting summary 18 judgment on federal and state law claims of a sexually 19 hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and 20 retaliation in favor of McGullam’s employer, defendant- 21 appellee Cedar Graphics, Inc. Regarding the T

We previously certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question of whether the affirmative defense to employer liability articulated in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) applies to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under New York City Administrative [Code] Section 8-107. See Zakrzewska v. The New School,

This appeal raises important questions regarding an individual's capacity to sue as a representative of minors in state foster care custody alleging violations of their civil rights.

On June 28, 2007, Mary Melvin, Kathleen J. Collins, and Gregory C. Elliott (collectively, the proposed Next Friends), filed a class action suit on behalf of foster care children who are under the lega

This appeal presents the question of whether the intramilitary immunity doctrine, as embraced by our circuit in Mier v. Owens, 57 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 1995), was superseded by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (“1997 Amendments”), Pub. L. No. 105-85, § 522(a), 111 Stat. 1629, 1734 (1997), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 10216(a). We conclude that the 1997 Amendments did not r

Ken Blair maintains his First Amendment rights were violated when his fellow school board members voted to remove him as their vice president because of his relentless criticism of the school district’s superintendent. The district court disagreed, and so do we. To be sure, the First Amendment protects Blair’s discordant speech as a general matter; it does not, however, immunize him from the p

By the time the 911 dispatcher in Dane County picked up the phone to receive a call, the connection had been broken. The dispatcher called back; no one answered. Police were alerted, and three officers soon arrived at the house from which the call had been placed. They entered without permission and questioned the four occupants:

David Hanson, his wife Karen, and their daughters Kari (the

An employee of the City of Barrow (Barrow) who served as finance director for nearly eight years resigned after learning the mayor was demoting her to the position of senior accountant. She filed suit alleging violation of her right to due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of the Alaska Whistleblower Act, and alleging wrongful termination and intentional and negligent infliction

Glover Construction Company and its owner, Paul Glover (collectively “Glover”) filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) Commissioners and six department officials (collectively the ODOT defendants).1 The complaint alleged the ODOT defendants retaliated against Glover in violation of its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The ODOT defendant

Roland McNeil, pro se, appeals from the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of Kennecott Holdings on his employment discrimination claims. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Background

McNeil, an African-American, filed a two-paragraph complaint in Utah state court. He alleged no facts, stating only that he represented himself “in the matter of em

Plaintiff Mark A. Clark, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Yellow Transportation, Inc. (“Yellow”) on his complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
<

Robert Leonard, a Native American, worked at Eastern Illinois University (“EIU”) for nearly twenty years, during which time EIU passed him over for several promotions. Believing that the most recent denied promotion was motivated by anti-Native American bias, Leonard sued EIU under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-1 - 2000e-17.

The district court granted s

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the Supreme Court held that public employees do not have First Amendment protection for statements made pursuant to their official duties. In this case we consider the application of Garcetti to plaintiff-appellant Nelson Anthoine, a low-level employee who jumped the chain of command to report directly to the chairman of his employer’s governing boar

In a single issue, Appellant, El Paso Independent School District (EPISD), appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment based upon its plea to the jurisdiction. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

The facts relevant to our resolution of this appeal arise primarily from two interrelated proceedings at the trial court level: (1) the original lawsuit, and (2) the bill of revie

Terry and Phyllis Price sued their former church, the First Baptist Church of Bulverde ("the Church"), for access to the Church's books and records. See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1396-2.23 (West 2003) (members of nonprofit corporation have right to inspect corporation's books and records). The Prices alleged that while the Church allowed them limited access to its books and records, it did n

Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens”) appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), and its motion for a new trial, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), following entry of judgment in favor of Aaron L. Howard, Jr. on his retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Florida C

r. Lyubov Gorelik ("Gorelik") appeals from the dismissal of her five-count complaint against Defendant-Appellee Kevin Costin ("Defendant") in his official capacity as president of the New Hampshire State Board of Medicine. Counts I through IV of Gorelik's complaint assert that Defendant violated her due process and equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. All f

Kim Iann Manning (“Manning”) was denied short-term disability benefits and subsequently terminated from employment by American Republic Insurance Company (“ARIC”). She sought judicial review of the benefits decision under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. 29 U.S.C. § 1132 et seq. She also asserted ERISA retaliation and interference claims. The district court2 affirmed ARIC’s

Tried to a jury, jury found for the Plaintiff on the disability discrimination but not the worker’s compensation retaliation.

Plaintiffs Arturo Arguelles-Romero and Evangelina Amezcua attempted to pursue a class action against AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit), the assignee of plaintiffs‟ automobile financing contract. Relying on an arbitration clause with a class action waiver contained in the contract, AmeriCredit moved to compel individual arbitration. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on the basis that

After two decades of employment with her county government, Dorothy Goelzer was fired from her job. Her supervisor informed her of the termination decision two weeks before she was scheduled to begin two months of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This leave did not mark the first time Goelzer was away from work on FMLA leave, as Goelzer had taken a significant amount of authori

The parties to this appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,1 Susan Eynon Lark (Appellant), and Montgomery Hospice Inc. (Appellee), present us with two questions of statutory interpretation.2 We must determine whether a former employee is entitled to assert a wrongful discharge action under the Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act (1) even if he or she never reported to an e

Timothy Nelson brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging thirteen officials at the Missouri Sexual Offender Treatment Center violated his constitutional rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and the district court2 dismissed Nelson's claims against six of the thirteen defendants. The remaining seven defendants appeal the district court's order denyi

Cathy Burkhart brought this action against her former employer American Railcar Industries, Inc. (ARI), alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA), Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-101 et seq. She also alleged the state tort of outrage. The district court1 granted summary judgmen