News
[07/22]
Elevated jobless claims point to weak labor market
[07/22]
Additional jobless benefits hinge on House vote
[07/19]
Obama to GOP: Restore jobless benefits
More...
Articles
Municipal Employment
Municipal employers are considered part of the "state" under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, action taken by a municipal employer is often considered "state" action, and therefore must conform to certain Constitutional requirements.
More...
What Do Employers Need to Know about the ADA?
There are a number of legal requirements and prohibitions an employer must take into consideration when evaluating a job applicant and extending an offer of employment, as well as throughout the course of the employee's career. When an applicant or an employee has a disability, an employer also must comply with federal and state statutes designed to protect disabled individuals in the workplace. Two of the major areas where an employer must be cognizant of the rights of disabled individuals are the hiring process and the provision of reasonable accommodations.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[06/25]
Kemp v. Holder
In an action for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act arising from the termination of plaintiff's employment as a federal court security officer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he had a "disability," as that term is defined under the ADA.
[06/25]
Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation, district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where, for substantially the same reasons as the court indicated below, the record reveals no significant evidentiary basis for the verdict.
[06/25]
Murthy v. Vilsack
In an action by an ex-employee against the Secretary of Agriculture for breach of the terms of a settlement agreement and for non-selection to a GS-15 position in violation of Title VII, an order partially transferring the action and partially granting summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the filing of an amended complaint after the 180-day waiting period expired could not cure the failure to exhaust; and 2) res judicata would not bar the filing of a new Title VII non-selection civil action after he exhausted his EEOC remedies.
[06/25]
Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.
In plaintiff's Title VII suit against her former employer for being fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment by residents of defendant's nursing home, district court's denial of defendant's motions for a new trial and remittitur are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that her complaints caused defendant to fire her; 2) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial on the basis of plaintiff's counsel's closing arguments; 3) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the compensatory damages as enough evidence supported a jury award of $25,000, which is well within the $200,000 cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3)(C); and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the punitive damage award and the logic of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) does not apply to this Title VII case.
[06/25]
Ruiz v. Cty. of Rockland
In an action against a county for national origin and race discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff was not qualified for his position based on evidence of plaintiff's misconduct; but 2) plaintiff failed to raise an inference of discrimination.
More...
|
