The retaliatory hostile work environment. The Retaliatory Hostile Work Environment A Hybrid Cause of Action in Search of a Standard PETER M.
|
|
- Bruno Austin
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 46 THE FEDERAL LAWYER June 2017
2 The Retaliatory Hostile Work Environment A Hybrid Cause of Action in Search of a Standard PETER M. MANSFIELD The retaliatory hostile work environment is a hybrid claim drawing upon Supreme Court precedent analyzing separate provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of Despite the high volume of Title VII litigation, confusion persists in federal courts regarding the proper standard to apply to this claim. As outlined below, the courts resolution of this issue is critical to litigants. Employment-law litigators should prepare accordingly. The Case Study Jim Smith is a dedicated paralegal. He focuses on his work and tries to steer clear of unnecessary workplace drama. But after testifying in support of a co-worker s claim of sexual harassment from a senior partner, Jim starts noticing icy stares from the firm s attorneys. One called him a traitor, and Jim s now starting to hear more whispers that he s on the outs with management. Uncoincidentally, Jim routinely draws dreaded document-review projects that are well-known to be the most undesirable work at the firm. After Jim is publicly berated for an error a young associate actually committed, then banished to a smaller workstation shortly thereafter, he s itching to file a charge himself. So what kind of claim could Jim pursue and what does he need to do to prove it? The answers lie in the developing body of law on retaliatory hostile work environments. Jim s case isn t an outlier; the statistics are clear. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Title VII retaliation charges have steadily increased since 1997 and have now overtaken race discrimination as the most frequently occurring charge. 1 And with this steady increase in claims, employment lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants can expect to encounter if they haven t already more and more Title VII claims like that of our hypothetical paralegal. The success or failure of Jim s case will turn on the legal standard governing his claim of a retaliatory hostile work environment. Background Title VII has included an anti-retaliation provision since its adoption in Over the next 40 years, most circuit courts interpreted Title VII s anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions coterminously. That is, to state a viable claim for retaliation under Title VII, an aggrieved employee must allege an adverse employment action, such as some adverse change in compensation or in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. 3 To fully understand the current issues arising in a retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim requires a brief review of two Supreme Court cases one expanding the reach of Title VII s anti-discrimination prohibition, and June 2017 THE FEDERAL LAWYER 47
3 another untethering Title VII s anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions from one another. First, in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 4 the Supreme Court held that, even in the absence of economic effects on employment, conditions sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment were actionable under Title VII. 5 The Supreme Court clarified in 1993 s Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., that this inquiry requires consideration of both objective criteria (i.e., whether a reasonable person in plaintiff s position would find the environment hostile or abusive) and plaintiff s subjective perception (i.e., whether the plaintiff in fact found the working environment hostile). 6 In applying this standard, the Supreme Court instructed lower courts to evaluate all the circumstances, including: the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee s work performance. 7 While both Meritor and Harris addressed factual allegations of sexual harassment (i.e., a gender-based hostile work environment), language in each opinion specified that the same standards applied to hostile-work-environment claims based on each protected characteristic in Title VII s anti-discrimination provision. 8 Meritor and Harris did not expressly reference the availability of hostile-work-environment standards for a retaliation claim. EEOC guidance at that time suggested that the retaliatory hostile-work-environment cause of action was viable, albeit without fully explor[ing] the contours of such a claim. 9 Early cases exploring the availability of the claim found no obvious reason why the legal requirements of a claim for co-worker retaliatory harassment should not parallel those for gender- and race-based claims. 10 The Supreme Court arguably supplied such a reason in 2006 when it decided Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White. 11 In White, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that Title VII s anti-retaliation provision should be read in pari materia with the antidiscrimination provision, which would limit employer actions prohibited by the anti-retaliation provision to conduct that affects the employee s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. 12 Adopting a standard originally articulated in the Seventh and District of Columbia Circuit Courts of Appeals, White held that a Title VII retaliation plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. 13 The Problem In sum, Meritor/Harris and White adopted two different standards plaintiffs must successfully plead and eventually prove to establish and recover for Title VII hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims, respectively. As explained above, the hostile-work-environment standard of Meritor/Harris originated in Title VII s anti-discrimination provision, whereas White exclusively addressed Title VII s anti-retaliation provision. While White expressly divorced the interpretation of Title VII s anti-retaliation provision from precedent addressing Title VII s anti-discrimination provision, White was conspicuously silent as to the implications its holding might have on claims for a retaliatory hostile work environment that, by 2006, several federal courts had explicitly recognized. Thus, when confronted with a hybrid claim of a retaliatory hostile work environment, post-white litigants and courts must harmonize, distinguish, or select between these standards. This resolution carries obvious and important implications on the parties pre-trial motion strategy and ultimate likelihood of success on the merits, as our hypothetical illustrates. 14 Because Meritor and Harris pre-date White, the briefs to the Supreme Court in White provide a fair starting point to investigate the genesis of this tension. In White, the plaintiff s counsel readily acknowledged favoring a standard for Title VII retaliation that would make even minor acts of retaliation actionable even though they may not meet the Meritor/Harris standard for a hostile work environment. 15 The defendant responded that, in the absence of a retaliatory adverse employment action, the Meritor/Harris standard should control in Title VII retaliatory hostile-work-environment cases since it would ensure that only retaliation that creates a seriously adverse change in working conditions may subject the employer to liability. 16 As one amicus similarly argued in support of defendant: If relentless sexual innuendo cannot be actionable as discrimination unless it renders the overall environment severely or pervasively hostile, it is not clear why much less harmful conduct should be actionable when it is alleged to be retaliatory. 17 Indeed, the defendant s counsel specifically predicted at oral argument that shunning conduct less than [a] hostile work environment could go to a jury if the Supreme Court adopted the Seventh and D.C. Circuit standard for Title VII retaliation claims. 18 The Current State of the Law Since White adopted a lesser, more employee-friendly standard for Title VII retaliation claims, the question then arises as to whether the more stringent Meritor/Harris standard, originally arising from Title VII s anti-discrimination provision, has any ongoing application to retaliatory hostile-work-environment claims. 19 The first case analyzing the effect of White on this cause of action was Khan v. HIP Centralized Laboratory Services Inc. 20 Khan acknowledged, as the White plaintiff s briefing suggested, that a lower standard for retaliatory hostile work environment claims may be appropriate. Another section of court in the Eastern District of New York rejected that suggestion, explaining that the Supreme Court found it necessary to impose a broader standard for retaliation claims than the Second Circuit and some other circuits had applied to accomplish the anti-retaliation purposes of 704, but there is no indication that the Supreme Court also felt it necessary to expand the reach of retaliatory hostile work environment claims. 21 Then-Chief District Judge Royce C. Lamberth in the District of Columbia authored perhaps the most detailed analysis of White s impact. In Bergbauer v. Mabus, Judge Lamberth acknowledged, as did Khan, that White calls into question how courts have since analyzed retaliatory hostile-work-environment claims. 22 Because White disassociated retaliation claims from statutory language in Title VII s anti-discrimination provision, importing hostile-work-environment standards from Title VII s anti-discrimination provision back into Title VII s anti-retaliation provision would appear to perpetuate the error White sought to correct. Thus, Bergbauer posits: Rather than asking whether retaliatory harassment was so severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employment, courts would ask whether the harassment would deter a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity. 23 And while Judge Lamberth 48 THE FEDERAL LAWYER June 2017
4 concluded that White logically suggests that courts apply a different standard to retaliatory hostile-work-environment claims, Bergbauer, nonetheless, applied the Meritor/Harris severe-or-pervasive standard under existing D.C. Circuit precedent. 24 Other post-white cases addressing retaliatory hostile work environments fall into two basic categories: (1) those that have abandoned the Meritor/Harris severe-or-pervasive standard in favor of the lesser White standard 25 and (2) those that continue to apply the Meritor/Harris severe-or-pervasive-harassment standard to a retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim despite White. 26 A closer examination of the case law, however, reveals both continued confusion and a resultant opportunity for Title VII litigators to favorably develop the law in their respective districts and circuits. For example, while the Third Circuit in Moore rejected the Meritor/Harris standard for a retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim post-white, it cited and applied the Meritor/Harris standard in a later, unpublished opinion addressing a retaliatory hostile work environment. 27 Likewise, while some lower courts have claimed that the First Circuit adopted the White standard for retaliatory hostile-work-environment claims, the First Circuit s opinion cited both the White and Meritor/Harris standards in the same paragraph. 28 The Eighth Circuit also appeared to adopt the White standard, though it did so in a case arising under the anti-retaliation provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, not Title VII. 29 The circuit courts that continue to apply the Meritor/Harris standard for a retaliatory hostile work environment post-white have done so without analyzing in detail the interplay between the two lines of authority. So, for instance, while the Seventh Circuit found no reason retaliation-based actions by an employer must somehow be less objectively offensive than in the context of sex or race in applying the Meritor/Harris standard, it confusingly cited White as its authority for the proposition. 30 Several other circuits have either not addressed the existence of retaliatory hostile-work-environment claims in the first instance, or have not firmly committed to a post- White standard to evaluate Title VII plaintiffs allegations. 31 Some Recommendations for the Path Forward To adequately account for the differing standards and uncertainty in circuit-court precedent, some federal district courts analyze Title VII retaliatory hostile-work-environment claims under both the Meritor/ Harris and White standards. 32 That is, if a plaintiff alleges and proves events establishing severe-or-pervasive retaliatory harassment under the Meritor/Harris standard, that will also suffice to satisfy the lesser White standard. The contrapositive is also true. That is, a plaintiff s failure to plead and prove events satisfying the White standard necessarily denotes a contemporaneous failure to satisfy the more rigorous Meritor/Harris standard. This binary paradigm, however, isn t exclusive. Some Title VII plaintiffs, like our hypothetical paralegal Jim, may satisfy White, but not Meritor/Harris. 33 It is unlikely that the Supreme Court or Congress will resolve this issue in the near future. Thus, counsel for both parties to a Title VII retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim in district court should with due consideration and recognition of any respective circuit precedent address both the Meritor/Harris and White standards in pleadings and motion practice. In doing so, however, counsel should also push district and circuit courts to analyze, address, and, where appropriate, resolve the divergent standards to provide clarity to litigants and their counsel. Indeed, if a Title VII retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim goes to trial, the court must adopt a standard to charge the jury on plaintiff s burden of proof. Thus, counsel should highlight and brief the issue to the court at the earliest occasion in the case to create a foundation for future success at a later jury-charge conference. In that briefing, counsel for Title VII plaintiffs will undoubtedly ask courts to adopt the Third Circuit s approach in Moore, utilizing the White standard to the exclusion of the Meritor/Harris standard. Judge Lamberth s analysis in Bergbauer outlines persuasive arguments in favor of that holding. 34 Title VII plaintiffs may also argue that the Supreme Court in White adopted a standard unique to Title VII s anti-retaliation provision that is flexible enough to address both retaliatory harassment and adverse employment actions. Moreover, the same textual analysis White employed to reject a coterminous interpretation of Title VII s anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions would justify a lesser standard for a retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim than would apply if the hostile work environment was predicated on racial or gender-based animus. Meanwhile, counsel for Title VII defendants will continue to assert that the Meritor/Harris severe-or-pervasive standard should govern all claims for a hostile work environment, regardless of the Title VII protected characteristic (e.g., race, gender, etc.) or behavior (e.g., engagement in protected activity) implicated. In charting this course, defendants will enjoy a tailwind since the weight of existing case law favors the Meritor/Harris approach for a retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim. The analytical justifications in the case law post-white, however, are thus far lacking. Defendants counsel will argue that the White plaintiff did not assert a retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim. 35 Moreover, the Supreme Court in White gave no indication that it intended to upset or limit the application of the Meritor/Harris standard, which by 2006 was established precedent in many federal courts governing hostile-work-environment claims predicated on the full panoply of Title VII s protected characteristics and behavior. 36 Conclusion Employment-law litigators handling Title VII retaliatory hostile-work-environment claims enjoy a unique opportunity to shape and influence the law in their districts and circuits. Skilled litigators should marshal, develop, and aggressively assert legal arguments and policy justifications in favor of the White or Meritor/Harris standards whenever confronted with a retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim. Guiding federal courts to resolve this legal standard would provide needed certainty and predictability for all parties in Title VII litigation. Endnotes Peter M. Mansfield is an assistant U.S. attorney and chief of the civil division for the U.S. Attorney s Office in the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans. This article reflects the personal views of the author and does not constitute official-capacity guidance from the United States Department of Justice. 1 Charge Statistics: FY 1997 Through FY 2016, U.S. Equal Opportunity Emp t Comm n, (last visited Dec. 1, 2016). June 2017 THE FEDERAL LAWYER 49
5 2 See Pub. L. No , Title VII, 704 (July 2, 1964) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a)). 3 Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 75 (2006) (Alito, J., concurring in judgment). 4 Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). 5 Id. at Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, (1993). 7 Id. at Id. at 22 ( [T]he very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to employees because of their race, gender, religion, or national origin offends Title VII s broad rule of workplace equality. ); Meritor, 477 U.S. at 66 (citing cases applying hostile-work-environment principles to race, religion, and national-origin claims). 9 Davis v. State of Calif. Dep t of Corr., 1996 WL , at *11 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 1996) (citing EEOC Compliance Manual as persuasive authority for existence of a retaliatory hostile-workenvironment claim under Title VII); see also Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 711 (5th Cir. 1997) (Dennis, J., dissenting). 10 Davis at *12; see also Fleming v. S.C. Dep t of Corr., 952 F. Supp. 283, 290 (D.S.C. 1996); Reilly v. Metro-N. Commuter R. Co., 1996 WL , at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 1996); Bryant v. Brownlee, 265 F. Supp. 2d 52, (D.D.C. 2003). 11 Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). 12 Id. at 61. The Supreme Court also rejected a more exacting standard that required proof of an ultimate employment decision to recover under Title VII s anti-retaliation provision. Id. at Id. at 68 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 14 See also Sclafani v. PC Richard & Son, 668 F. Supp. 2d 423, 439 n.9 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) ( [A] plaintiff could theoretically be subject to materially adverse actions that might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination, but not sufficiently severe or pervasive. ) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This is likely the case for our paralegal Jim Smith. While his working environment likely does not demonstrate severeor-pervasive retaliatory harassment sufficient to change the actual conditions of his employment, those same events could be construed as sufficient to dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity. 15 Brief for Respondent at 15-16, Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (No ), 2006 WL , at * Brief for Petitioner at 32, Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (No ), 2006 WL , at * Brief for Amicus Curiae the Association of American Railroads in Support of Petitioner at 11, Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (No ), 2006 WL , at * Transcript of Oral Argument at 35, Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (No ), 2006 WL , at * In the 20-plus years since the Supreme Court decided Meritor, most federal courts have by now recognized a Title VII cause of action for a retaliatory hostile work environment. The two exceptions are the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. See Tejada v. Travis Ass n for the Blind, 617 F. App x 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2015) ( This court has yet to determine whether a Title VII retaliation claim based on a hostile work environment is cognizable. ); Kline v. Utah Anti- Discrimination & Labor Div., 418 F. App x 774, 781 n.2 (10th Cir. 2011) ( [C]auses of action for retaliatory hostile work environment have not been formally recognized by the Tenth Circuit. ). The Fifth Circuit has also avoided addressing what effects Burlington Northern (i.e., White) were to have on the plaintiff s burden to prove actionable harm for a retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim. Bryan v. Chertoff, 217 F. App x 289, 293 (5th Cir. 2007). Notably, before White, the Fifth Circuit had previously required an ultimate employment decision to state a Title VII retaliation claim, see Mattern, 104 F.3d at , which necessarily excluded retaliatory harassment that did not culminate in granting leave, discharging, promoting, or compensating. Id.; see also supra note Khan v. HIP Centralized Lab. Servs. Inc., 2007 WL (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2007). 21 Ezuma v. City Univ. of N.Y., 665 F. Supp. 2d 116, 126 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). 22 Bergbauer v. Mabus, 934 F. Supp. 2d 55, 80 (D.D.C. 2013). 23 Id. at Id. at Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, (3d Cir. 2006); Stewart v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 196, 481 F.3d 1034, 1042 (8th Cir. 2007). 26 Baird v. Gotbaum, 792 F.3d 166, 169 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910, 920 (7th Cir. 2016); Gowski v. Peake, 682 F.3d 1299, 1312 (11th Cir. 2012); Khamati v. Sec y of Dep t of the Treasury, 557 F. App x 434, 443 (6th Cir. 2015). 27 Harley v. U.S. Sec y of Treasury, 444 F. App x 594, 595 (3d Cir. 2011). 28 Alvarado v. Donahoe, 687 F.3d 453, 461 (1st Cir. 2012). 29 Stewart, 481 F.3d at Boss, 816 F.3d at See supra note Griffin v. Texas Dep t of State Health Servs., 2011 WL , at *4 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2011); Cajamarca v. Regal Entm t Grp., 863 F. Supp. 2d 237, 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2012); Clarke v. DynCorp Int l LLC, 962 F. Supp. 2d 781, 790 (D. Md. 2013); Komis v. Perez, 2014 WL , at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2014); Matthews v. Corning Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 275, 297 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). 33 See supra note See supra notes White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R. Co., 364 F.3d 789, 796 n.1 (6th Cir. 2004); Bergbauer, 934 F. Supp. 2d at Relatedly, in courts favoring the White standard, defendants counsel will likely seek clarity on the interplay, if any, between the White standard and the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense. See White, 548 U.S. at This issue is beyond the limited scope of this article, but for additional reading on the topic see Irene Gamer, The Retaliatory Harassment Claim: Expanding Employer Liability in Title VII Lawsuits, 3 Seton Hall Circuit Rev. 269, (Fall 2006). 50 THE FEDERAL LAWYER June 2017
by DAVID P. TWOMEY* 2(a) (2006)). 2 Pub. L. No , 704, 78 Stat. 257 (1964) (current version at 42 U.S.C. 2000e- 3(a) (2006)).
Employee retaliation claims under the Supreme Court's Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co. v. White decision: Important implications for employers Author: David P. Twomey Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/1459
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-50936 Document: 00512865785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CRYSTAL DAWN WEBB, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationCLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BREEDEN. on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
268 OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BREEDEN on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 00 866. Decided April 23, 2001
More informationTERESA HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, 114 S. Ct. 367 (U.S. 11/09/1993)
TERESA HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, 114 S. Ct. 367 (U.S. 11/09/1993) [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES [2] No. 92-1168 [3] 114 S. Ct. 367, 126 L. Ed. 2d 295, 62 U.S.L.W. 4004, 1993.SCT.46674
More informationB.C. V. STEAK N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC.: SHAKING UP TEXAS S INTERPRETATION OF THE TCHRA
B.C. V. STEAK N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC.: SHAKING UP TEXAS S INTERPRETATION OF THE TCHRA I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. BACKGROUND... 2 A. The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act... 2 B. Common Law Claims Under
More informationDiscrimination v. Retaliation: What Level of Harm is Necessary to Establish a Cause of Action Under Title VII?
Chicago-Kent College of Law Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Louis Jackson National Student Writing Competition Institute for Law and the Workplace 1-1-2011 Discrimination v. Retaliation:
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Derek Hall appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment to
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 15, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DEREK HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERSTATE
More information2007 EMPLOYMENT LAW SYMPOSIUM July 20, 2007 Dallas, Texas
RETALIATION CLAIMS AFTER BURLINGTON NORTHERN V. WHITE MARLOW J. MULDOON II Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75202 214-712-9500 214-712-9540 (fax) marlow.muldoon@cooperscully.com
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No CHRYSOULA J. KOMIS, Appellant SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-3813 CHRYSOULA J. KOMIS, Appellant v. SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR On Appeal from the United States District
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2081 JANEENE J. JENSEN-GRAF, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHESAPEAKE EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HALLIBURTON COMPANY, No. 13-60323 Petitioner, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 11, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. ADMINISTRATIVE
More informationBurlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White: Retaliation Clarified
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law Volume 21 Issue 2 Article 6 5-1-2007 Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White: Retaliation Clarified Heidi Chewning Follow this and additional
More informationCASE 0:14-cv DSD-TNL Document 28 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 15. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No.
CASE 0:14-cv-00599-DSD-TNL Document 28 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 14-599(DSD/TNL) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff,
More informationNO IN THE FLYING J INC., KYLE KEETON, RESPONDENT S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
NO. 05-1550 IN THE FLYING J INC., v. KYLE KEETON, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit RESPONDENT S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
More informationALSB Journal of Employment and Labor Law Volume 15, 46 53, Spring 2014
ALSB Journal of Employment and Labor Law Volume 15, 46 53, Spring 2014 In Search of UnderStanding: An Analysis of Thompson v. North American Stainless, L.P., and The Expansion of Standing and Third-Party
More informationCase 1:14-cv MPK Document 45 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:14-cv-00215-MPK Document 45 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TINA DEETER, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 14-215E
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
No. 16-60104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, v. Plaintiff- Appellant, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More informationCase 1:13-cv LG-JCG Document 133 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:13-cv-00383-LG-JCG Document 133 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Plaintiff Harry J. Samuels appeals from the entry of summary judgment in
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 14, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT HARRY J. SAMUELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE I. AGE DISCRIMINATION By Edward T. Ellis 1 A. Disparate Impact Claims Under the ADEA After Smith v. City of Jackson 1. The Supreme
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Civ. No JP/WPL
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO vs. Civ. No. 04-1118 JP/WPL DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., f/k/a Airborne Express, Inc.,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 10-1395 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States UNITED AIR LINES, INC., v. CONSTANCE HUGHES, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MARISA E. DIGGS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Respondent. 2010-3193 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
More informationA RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR SPERINO S RETALIATION AND THE UNREASONABLE JUDGE. Alex B. Long * INTRODUCTION
A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR SPERINO S RETALIATION AND THE UNREASONABLE JUDGE Alex B. Long * INTRODUCTION I m about to relate a story, and I promise it s true. I recently met with an employee who had a problem
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JON HENRY, v. Plaintiff - Appellant, REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
More informationCase 1:15-cv JGK Document 14 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 5 THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 CHURCH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10007
Case 1:15-cv-03460-JGK Document 14 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 5 ZACHARY W. CARTER Corporation Counsel THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 CHURCH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10007 KRISTEN MCINTOSH Assistant Corporation
More informationREED V. UAW: AN ADVERSE RULING ON ADVERSE ACTION
REED V. UAW: AN ADVERSE RULING ON ADVERSE ACTION Nathan J. McGrath INTRODUCTION The United States of America is a country that is famously known for, among other laudable virtues, its commitment to the
More informationHistorically, ERISA disability benefit claim litigation has included a number of procedural
Nolan v. Heald College The Diminishing Role of Rule 56 in ERISA Disability Benefits Litigation By Horace W. Green and C. Mark Humbert Historically, ERISA disability benefit claim litigation has included
More informationAvoiding and Handling Retaliation Claims
Avoiding and Handling Retaliation Claims Presented By: Jonathan Hancock, Esq. 165 Madison Avenue Suite 2000 Memphis, Tennessee Email: jhancock@bakerdonelson.com Phone: 901.577.8202 2010 Baker, Donelson,
More informationInternal Investigations in Light of #MeToo
Internal Investigations in Light of #MeToo Dan Stein Partner, Mayer Brown October 25, 2018 Elizabeth Feeney Assistant General Counsel, Dispute Resolution & Prevention, GlaxoSmithKline Marcia Goodman Partner,
More information6:13-cv MGL Date Filed 02/21/14 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 10
6:13-cv-00257-MGL Date Filed 02/21/14 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Gregory Somers, ) Case No. 6:13-cv-00257-MGL-JDA
More informationThe SEC Pleading Standard For Scienter
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The SEC Pleading Standard For Scienter Law360,
More informationSupreme Court Narrows the Meaning of Supervisor and Clarifies Retaliation Standard. Michael A. Caldwell, J.D.
Supreme Court Narrows the Meaning of Supervisor and Clarifies Retaliation Standard Michael A. Caldwell, J.D. Both public and private employers can rest a little easier this week knowing that the U.S. Supreme
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
EDWIN ASEBEDO, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 17, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. KANSAS
More informationRejecting Sexual Advances as Protected Activity: A District Court Split 1
Rejecting Sexual Advances as Protected Activity: A District Court Split 1 March 5-7, 2009 Litigating Employment Discrimination and Employment-Related Claims And Defenses in Federal and State Courts Scottsdale,
More informationNo REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER
No. 06-1431 FILED JUL 2? ~ CBOCS WEST, INC., Petitioner, Vo HEDRICK G. HUMPHRIES, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Cera orari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit REPLY BRIEF
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit May 12, 2017 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT BRYAN SHANE JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No.
More informationNo MYRNA GOMEZ-PEREZ, PETITIONER v. JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL
No. 06-1321 JUL, 2 4 2007 MYRNA GOMEZ-PEREZ, PETITIONER v. JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS EOR THE EIRST CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 7, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-2131 Lower Tribunal No. 12-15914 Beatriz Buade,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 11-2502 DEBORAH COOK, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, IPC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District
More informationLaura A. Pfeiffer RETALIATION CLAIMS ON THE RISE WHAT CAN EMPLOYERS DO ABOUT IT? with special guest Justice Ericson Lindell
Laura A. Pfeiffer RETALIATION CLAIMS ON THE RISE WHAT CAN EMPLOYERS DO ABOUT IT? with special guest Justice Ericson Lindell (612) 604 6685 lpfeiffer@winthrop.com RETALIATION CLAIMS ON THE RISE TITLE VII
More informationCase 1:07-cv RWR Document 2 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:07-cv-00797-RWR Document 2 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KAREN L. KIMMEL, ) ) Case No. 1:07-cv-00797 (RWR) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) )
More information0:11-cv CMC Date Filed 10/08/13 Entry Number 131 Page 1 of 11
0:11-cv-02993-CMC Date Filed 10/08/13 Entry Number 131 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Torrey Josey, ) C/A No. 0:11-2993-CMC-SVH )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-30204 Document: 00512826702 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JOANNE STONE, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VICKY S. CRAWFORD, METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
No. 06-1595 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VICKY S. CRAWFORD, v. Petitioner, METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United
More informationExpanding DCHRA Beyond DC Employment
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Expanding DCHRA Beyond DC Employment Law360,
More informationThe Sixth Circuit s Deleon Holding: How Granting a Requested Transfer May Be an Adverse Employment Action
OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL FURTHERMORE VOLUME 75 CASE COMMENT The Sixth Circuit s Deleon Holding: How Granting a Requested Transfer May Be an Adverse Employment Action MEGAN WALKER * Commenting on Deleon v.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA I. INTRODUCTION
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON GARY MESMER, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Plaintiff, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Mary McDonald appeals the district court s entry of judgment after a jury
MARY McDONALD, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 1, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF
More informationSupreme Court s Limited Protection for Whistleblowers Under Dodd-Frank. Lindsey Catlett *
Supreme Court s Limited Protection for Whistleblowers Under Dodd-Frank Lindsey Catlett * The Dodd-Frank Act (the Act ), passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, was intended to deter abusive practices
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv VMC-TBM.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] NEELAM UPPAL, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-13614 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-00634-VMC-TBM FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH
More informationCase 2:14-cv JS-SIL Document 25 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 135
Case 2:14-cv-03257-JS-SIL Document 25 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 135 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------X TINA M. CARR, -against-
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 24 Filed: 06/07/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:107
Case: 1:12-cv-09795 Document #: 24 Filed: 06/07/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:107 JACQUELINE B. BLICKLE v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
More informationWin One, Lose One: A New Defense for California
Win One, Lose One: A New Defense for California 9/15/2001 Employment + Labor and Litigation Client Alert This Commentary highlights two recent developments in California employment law: (1) the recent
More informationPROCEDURE ETH-151P-01 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION
PROCEDURE ETH-151P-01 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION Authorized by the following policies: ETH-151 Equal Opportunity ETH-152 Reasonable Accommodations for Qualified Applicants
More informationCOMMENTARY. The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework. Case Background
August 2014 COMMENTARY The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework Spoliation of evidence has, for some time, remained an important topic relating to the discovery
More informationCase 8:05-cv GLS-DRH Document 31 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 21
Case 8:05-cv-00506-GLS-DRH Document 31 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAREN TENNEY, Plaintiff, v. 1:05-CV-0506 (GLS\DRH) ESSEX COUNTY/ HORACE NYE
More informationBurrows v. The College of Central Florida Doc. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION
Burrows v. The College of Central Florida Doc. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION BARBARA BURROWS, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 5:14-cv-197-Oc-30PRL THE COLLEGE OF CENTRAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Payne v. Grant County Board of County Commissioners et al Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA SHARI PAYNE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-14-362-M GRANT COUNTY,
More informationLavar Davis v. Solid Waste Services Inc
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-20-2015 Lavar Davis v. Solid Waste Services Inc Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationCase 3:16-cv L Document 9 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:16-cv-02430-L Document 9 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SHEBA COWSETTE, Plaintiff, V. No. 3:16-cv-2430-L FEDERAL
More informationCircuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016
Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-13-005664 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1717 September Term, 2016 BALTIMORE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGE v. MARCELLUS JACKSON Leahy,
More informationCase 1:16-cv RM-MJW Document 39 Filed 04/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12
Case 1:16-cv-00091-RM-MJW Document 39 Filed 04/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12 Civil Action No. 16-cv-00091-RM-MJW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore
More informationHow Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions
How Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions By Robert H. Bell and Thomas G. Haskins Jr. July 18, 2012 District courts and circuit courts continue to grapple with the full import of the
More informationDEFENSE ANALYSIS UNDER FARAGHER/ELLERTH OF MS. STRONG S SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS:
DEFENSE ANALYSIS UNDER FARAGHER/ELLERTH OF MS. STRONG S SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS: ANNOTATED OUTLINE FOR DRAFTING ARBITRATION BRIEF OF DEFENDANT HEALTHY, WEALTHY & WISE Andrew M. Altschul Edward J.
More informationProhibits any and/or all harassment discrimination based on the seven protected classes. Applies In virtually all housing-related activities
Prohibits any and/or all harassment discrimination based on the seven protected classes Applies In virtually all housing-related activities It shall be unlawful, because of sex to impose different terms,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. CIVIL NO.
Madrigal v. Kleberg County et al Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED September
More informationAGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). SUMMARY: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is proposing revisions to its
[6570-01-P] EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 1614 RIN Number: 3046-AA73 Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). ACTION: Notice
More informationDEPENDS. year! unlawful procedures in the workplace. in the workplace.
WHAT IS IS AN AN ADVERSE ADVERSE ACTION? ACTION? WELL, IT WELL, IT DEPENDS By: Michelle J. Douglass, J. Douglass, Esquire Esquire The Law Office Office of Michelle of Michelle J Douglass, J Douglass, L.L.C.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION. v. Case No. 5:14cv265-MW/CJK
Case 5:14-cv-00265-MW-CJK Document 72 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION TORIANO PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No.
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 149 Filed: 09/26/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:7573
Case: 1:13-cv-06594 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/26/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:7573 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NOTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SOCIETY OF AMERICAN BOSNIANS AND
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV M
Lewis v. Southwest Airlines Co Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JUSTIN LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 09-834 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States KEVIN KASTEN, v. Petitioner, SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x SONYA GORBEA, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Gorbea v. Verizon NY Inc Doc. 67 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------x SONYA GORBEA, Plaintiff, -against- MEMORANDUM & ORDER 11-CV-3758 (KAM)(LB) VERIZON
More informationCase: 1:15-cv Document #: 34 Filed: 01/20/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:132
Case: 1:15-cv-07694 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/20/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:132 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION VICTOR J. EVANS, Plaintiff, v. No.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-301 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL CLARKE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
More informationInjunctions, Compulsory Licenses, and Other Prospective Relief What the Future Holds for Litigants
Injunctions, Compulsory Licenses, and Other Prospective Relief What the Future Holds for Litigants AIPLA 2014 Spring Meeting Colin G. Sandercock* * These slides have been prepared for the AIPLA 2014 Spring
More informationKRUPIN O'BRIEN LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1156 FIFTEENTH STREET, N.W. SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, D.C
KRUPIN O'BRIEN LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1156 FIFTEENTH STREET, N.W. SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 TELEPHONE (202) 530-0700 FACSIMILE (202) 530-0703 American Bar Association Annual Meeting Washington, D.C.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Case :-cv-0-jaf Document Filed 0// Page of LONDON MILES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO Civil No. - (JAF) WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, SHAWYN MALEY, Defendants. OPINION
More informationCase 2:14-cv BO Document 46 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION No. 2:14-CV-12-BO DANNY DAVIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) GREGORY POOLE EQUIPMENT ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant.
More informationPennsylvania State Police v. Suders
Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 12 2005 Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders LeiLani J. Hart Amerian University Washington College of Law Follow this and additional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ORDER
0 0 MARY MATSON, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant. HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES CASE NO. C0- RAJ ORDER On November,
More informationCase 1:08-cv RWR-JMF Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cv-00961-RWR-JMF Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-961
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 6:09-cv MSS-GJK.
SHARON BENTLEY, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-11617 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 6:09-cv-01102-MSS-GJK [DO NOT PUBLISH] FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH
More informationInsurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Insurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Donna Lloyd s ( Plaintiff ) second request
LLOYD v. AUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Doc. 31 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DONNA LLOYD, Civil Action No. 11-4071 (JAP) Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM ORDER AUGME TECHNOLOGIES,
More informationTHE DISTRICT COURT CASE
Supreme Court Sets the Bar High, Requiring Knowledge or Willful Blindness to Establish Induced Infringement of a Patent, But How Will District Courts Follow? Peter J. Stern & Kathleen Vermazen Radez On
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Burget v. Capital West Securities Inc Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA GRANT BURGET, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-09-1015-M CAPITAL WEST SECURITIES, INC.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-51019 Document: 00514474545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BEATRICE GONZALES, Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationCase 1:16-cv KLM Document 26 Filed 07/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO ORDER
Case 1:16-cv-02000-KLM Document 26 Filed 07/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 Civil Action No. 16-cv-02000-KLM GARY THUROW, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-370 In The Supreme Court of the United States JAMEKA K. EVANS, v. Petitioner, GEORGIA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, et al., Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
More informationWalking on Eggshells: The Effect of the United States Supreme Court's Ruling in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v.
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 1-1-2008 Walking on Eggshells: The Effect
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-10086 Document: 00513329434 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationCase 3:10-cv L Document 22 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:10-cv-00546-L Document 22 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICHAEL RIDDLE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0546-L
More information8/4/2010 8:08 AM HEGERICH_COMMENT_FORMATTED_ DOC (DO NOT DELETE)
Employment Law Title VII Does Not Extend to Third-Party Retaliation Claim by Fiancée of Discrimination Claimant Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 567 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2009) Section 704(a) of
More informationFrequently Asked Questions about EEOC Guidance on Consideration of Criminal History
Frequently Asked Questions about EEOC Guidance on Consideration of Criminal History Texas law precludes school district employment for persons with certain criminal history. The federal Equal Employment
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DR. RACHEL TUDOR, Plaintiff, v. Case No. CIV-15-324-C SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY and THE REGIONAL UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
More information[Vol. 15:2 AKRON LAW REVIEW
CIVIL RIGHTS Title VII * Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 0 Disclosure Policy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Corp. 101 S. Ct. 817 (1981) n Equal Employment Opportunity
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Cooper v. Corrections Corporation of America, Kit Carson Correctional Center Doc. 25 Civil Action No. 15-cv-00755-JLK TAMERA L. COOPER, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
More informationCase 3:13-cv L Document 109 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 3052
Case 3:13-cv-02920-L Document 109 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 3052 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION INFECTIOUS DISEASE DOCTORS, P.A., Plaintiff, v.
More information