News
[01/24]
Job bias claims at record level
[01/11]
Pepsi Beverages pays $3.1M in racial bias case
[01/11]
Md. man's leave lawsuit lands in Supreme Court
More...
[02/03]
AP Interview: Main says mines can't be complacent
[02/03]
Unemployment rate hits 8.3 pct. after hiring burst
[02/02]
AstraZeneca to cut 7,300 jobs as outlook darkens
More...
[02/03]
Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
[02/03]
EU probes new Google privacy policy
[02/03]
'Boys Don't Cry' inmate appeals to Supreme Court
More...
|
Case Summaries
[02/03]
Lawson v. FMR, LLC In two separate but related cases under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, alleging unlawful retaliation by employers that are private companies that act under contract as advisers to and managers of mutual funds organized under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the district court's denial of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim is reversed, as the whistleblower protection afforded by section 806(a) of the Act applies only to the employees of public companies as defined in the Act, and not to an employee of a contractor or subcontractor of a public company reporting suspected violations relating to fraud against shareholders of the public company.
[02/03]
Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp. In a dispute over the violation of an employment severance agreement, the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award is affirmed, where: 1) the severance agreement called for arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act; 2) the district court did not err by not conducting a merits review of the award; and 3) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law governing the severance agreement. Denial of the appellant's motion for contempt is also affirmed, where under the plain terms of a permanent injunction issued by the court, the employer was entitled to delete documents from the appellant's computer.
[02/02]
Lore v. City of Syracuse In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.
[02/02]
Lazaro v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs On appeal of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board that denied the plaintiff's claim for relief under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, the order is vacated and the case remanded, where: 1) the Board had jurisdiction to determine whether the Veterans Administration properly afforded the plaintiff the right to compete for the job and whether it properly determined that the plaintiff was not qualified for the position; and 2) the Board committed legal error by concluding that the administrative judge properly determined that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim and that the administrative judge's analysis was not erroneous.
More...
Frequently Asked Questions
|
|