EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR THE NON-EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
|
|
- Regina Neal
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR THE NON-EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE Solo & Small Firm Conference June 2013 Presented by Bridget Halquist Jonathan C. Berns Chackes Carlson & Halquist, LLP Dobson, Goldberg, Berns & Rich, LLP 906 Olive Street, Suite Washington Place, Third Floor St. Louis, MO St. Louis, MO (314) (314) I. INTRODUCTION Laws relating to the area of employment have expanded tremendously in the past few decades. Some areas of employment are exclusively governed by federal law, while others see employers covered by overlapping state laws. In general, federal law has established a threshold of what an employer must do at a minimum and what employees are entitled to in various situations. State law may govern if it either establishes a higher, more strict standard for employers than federal law, or applies to a class of employers not covered by federal law. This means that where both state and federal laws apply, state regulations must offer either the same or greater protections to employees than federal law. II. THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP At-Will Employment in Missouri the general rule is that employment is at the will of the employee or employer and can be terminated at any time with or without cause. The exceptions to this rule are: where there is a contract of employment that limits the right to terminate the employment such as an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement; violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act ( MHRA ), Mo.Rev.Stat et seq.; where a statute specifically provides the employee with a remedy for the wrongful discharge (i.e., worker's compensation, reporting safety violations, jury service, voting) where the termination contravenes a public policy clearly stated in the Constitution, a statute, or regulation (i.e., reporting wrongdoing, refusing to
2 perform an illegal act, engaging in activities normally encouraged by public policy). III. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION A) The Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability. B) MHRA covers employment practices of public & private employers which employ six (6) or more persons within the state. It does NOT apply to corporations and associations owned and operated by religious or sectarian groups. C) Remedies - Employees must exhaust administrative remedies, which means that in order to bring a complaint of illegal discrimination, the employee must file a charge of discrimination with the state or federal administrative agency Missouri Commission on Human Rights or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The employee has 180 or 300 days from the discriminatory act to file a charge of discrimination with the MCHR or EEOC respectively. After investigation of claims or written request, the agencies issue a Notice of Right to Sue, and the employee has 90 days to file suit. IV. MHRA V. FEDERAL LAW A) Charge Filing 1. MHRA a charge must be filed within 180 days of the last alleged act of discrimination , RSMo. Continuing violation exception: An employee may recover for acts of discrimination occurring prior to the 180-day filing period if the discrimination is a series of interrelated events. Wallingsford v. City of Maplewood, 287 S.W.3d 682, 685 (Mo. 2009). 2. Federal law a Title VII, ADEA and ADA charge must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. See 42 U.S.C (e)(1). B) Statutes of Limitation 1. MHRA Any action brought in Court... shall be filed within 90 days from the date of the MCHR's Right to Sue Letter , RSMo. Any action brought in Court... shall be filed... no later than two years after the alleged cause occurred or its reasonable discovery by the alleged injured party. Id.
3 The Missouri Savings Statute, Mo.Rev.Stat (under which a party has one year to refile a lawsuit after the first voluntary dismissal) does not apply to lawsuits filed under the MHRA. Hutcheson v. Electronic Data Access Technologies, Inc., 327 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). 2. Federal law Must file suite within 90 days after the giving of such notice U.S.C (g)(1). C) Individual Liability 1. MHRA individual liability permitted. Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W.3d 659, 669 (Mo. 2009); Cooper v. Albacore Holdings, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). 2. Federal law under Title VII and most federal statutes, individual liability is not permitted. D) Summary Judgment Availability 1. MHRA State courts will generally be more hostile to Defendant's summary judgment motions than federal. Daughtery v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. 2007) (court stated summary judgment should seldom be used in employment discrimination cases, because such cases are inherently fact based and often depend on inferences rather than on direct evidence. ). 2. Federal law -Federal court precedent sometimes articulates the view that summary judgment is to be used sparingly, yet it is granted often. [T]here is no 'discrimination case exception' to the application of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, and it remains a useful pretrial tool to determine whether or not any case, including one alleging discrimination, merits a trial. Berg v. Norand Corp., 169 F.3d 1140, 1144 (8 th Cir. 1999); Rodgers v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 417 F.3d 845, 850 (8 th Cir. 2005); See also, Torgerson et al. v. City of Rochester, Case No (8 th Cir. June 1, 2011). E) Summary Judgment Standard 1. MHRA Court in Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. 2007) held that McDonnell Douglas burden shifting no longer applies. In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the Defendant must prove that: Plaintiff's protected trait (race, sex, etc.) was not a contributing factor in the attacked employment decision. 2. Federal law thousands of federal cases decided since the landmark decision of
4 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) hold that where there is no direct evidence of discrimination, the three (3) phase, burden shifting analysis applies: First, Plaintiff must adduce evidence of a prima facie case of discrimination; Second, if a prima facie case is submitted, then the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment decision; Third, Plaintiff must then prove that the reason articulated by the employer is a pretext for the actual, discriminatory, but-for cause of the decision. F) Damage Caps Beyond Back Pay 1. MHRA No compensatory damage cap, but punitive damage cap per , RSMo. No punitive damage award agains any defendant shall exceed the greater of: $500,000; or Five times the net amount of the judgment awarded to the Plaintiff. 2. Federal law Title VII and ADA: 15 to 100 employees: $50, to 200 employees: $100, to 500 employees: $200, or more employees: $300,000 G) Jury Instructions Business Judgment 1. MHRA None. Refusal to give business judgment instruction is not reversible error. McBryde v. Ritenour School District, 207 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). 2. Federal law Defendants are entitled to the business judgment instruction: You may not return a verdict for the Plaintiff just because you might disagree with the Defendant's decision or believe it to be harsh or unreasonable. 8 th Cir. Civil Jury Instruction 5.94 (2007). Reversible error to refuse this instruction. Belk v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 194 F.3d 946 (8 th Cir. 1999).
5 H) Jury Instructions Same Decision 1. MHRA No same decision instruction is available. Refusal to give same decision instruction is not reversible error. McBryde v. Ritenour School District, 207 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). 2. Federal law In order to avoid an award of damages, for many years Defendants have been entitled to the same decision instruction: If you find in favor of the Plaintiff under Instruction, then you must answer the following question in the verdict forms: Has it been proved by the preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant would have [insert employment decision] the Plaintiff regardless of her sex? Reversible error to refuse this instruction. I) Jury Instructions Verdict Director 1. MHRA The state court instruction, MAI 38.01, states: Your verdict must be for plaintiff and against defendant if you believe: First, defendant discharged plaintiff, and Second, plaintiff's [age] was a contributing factor in such discharge, and Third, as a direct result of such conduct, plaintiff sustained damage. 2. Federal law - Traditional Federal Jury Instruction used in discrimination cases requires a jury's verdict to be for plaintiff if plaintiff's [age] was a motivating factor in defendant's employment decision. V. CLOSER LOOK AT SIGNIFICANT CASES A) Right to Jury Trial Under MHRA - Diehl v. O Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. 2003). 1. In a case for damages under the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo.Rev.Stat et seq., a plaintiff has a constitutional right to a jury trial under Article I, Section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution. 2. Missouri Supreme Court finds that a claim for damages under the Missouri Human Rights Act seeks redress for an intentional wrong done to a person and is thus analogous to other tort actions to which individuals are entitled to jury trials. 95 S.W.3d at B) Adoption of MAI [now 38.01] In July 2005, the Missouri Supreme Court adopted MAI (which has since been renumbered as 38.01) which set forth that the applicable causation standard for MHRA claims is a contributing factor
6 standard (i.e., that the plaintiff must prove that the protected characteristic, such as age, gender, race, disability, etc., was a contributing factor in the employer s challenged employment action against the plaintiff). C) New Burden of Proof McBryde v. Ritenour School Dist., 207 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. App. 2006). 1. Court held that MAI correctly instructs under the law. 2. No right to business judgment or same decision instructions. 3. Court defines contributing factor as that contributes a share in anything or has a part in producing the effect. 207 S.W.3d at Court of Appeals finds that in enacting the MHRA, the legislature sought to prohibit any consideration of race or other improper characteristic no matter how slight in employment decisions. 207 S.W.3d at 170. D) Rejection of Federal Framework Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007). 1. Missouri Supreme Court affirms validity of MAI and announces that the state courts should not strictly apply federal law to cases under the MHRA and that Missouri employment law should, and will, regularly deviate from federal precedent. The Supreme Court stated: Missouri employment discrimination law in a post-mai environment should more closely reflect the plain language of the MHRA and the standards set forth in MAI and rely less on analysis developed through federal case law. 231 S.W.3d at 819. Court finds that contributing factor is the sole consideration for a trial judge evaluating an MHRA claim at summary judgment. The contributing factor language used in MAI is consistent with the plain meaning of the MHRA and that [a]nalyzing summary judgment decisions under the standards set forth in MAI is appropriate because a plaintiff has no higher standard to survive summary judgment than is required to submit a claim to a jury. 231 S.W.3d at To survive summary judgment, there must be a genuine issue of material fact as to whether prohibited characteristic was a contributing factor to the challenged employment decision. E) Individual Liability: Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W.3d 659, 669 (Mo. 2009); Cooper v. Albacore Holdings, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). 1. Owners, supervisors, human resource managers, and harassers can be held individually liable under the MHRA. F) Contributing Factor Analysis Extended to Retaliation Cases Hill v. Ford Motor
7 Co., 277 S.W.3d 659 (Mo. 2009). 1. Reaffirmed contributing factor standard in discrimination cases and directed Missouri courts to use contributing factor standard in retaliation cases as well. 2. Held that individuals not named in the Charge of Discrimination must be able to demonstrate prejudice to obtain dismissal. 3. Statutory language: A plaintiff has the right to bring a civil action against the respondent named in the complaint. Mo.Rev.Stat Yet, if a party was not named in the charge can be a defendant in an MHRA lawsuit so long as there is a substantial identity of interest between the parties sued and those charged. Id. at The factors to consider to determine if there is a substantial identity of interest are: whether the role of the unnamed party could through reasonable effort be ascertained at the time of the filing of the lawsuit; whether the interests of a named party or so similar as the unnamed party s interests that for the purpose of obtaining voluntary conciliation and compliance it would be unnecessary to include the unnamed party in the EEOC proceedings; whether the unnamed party s absence from the proceedings resulted in actual prejudice to the interests of the unnamed party; whether the unnamed party has in some way represented to the complainant that its relationship with the complainant is to be through the named party. 5. Best Practice: If you might want to name a person or entity as a defendant in the lawsuit, make sure you name the person/entity as a respondent in the charge and describe what action the person/entity took that you alleged was discriminatory in the body of the charge. 6. Individual liability reaffirmed: Court held an individual can be held personally liable if he/she is directly acting in the interest of an employer under Mo.Rev.Stat (7) if he/she engages in discriminatory conduct. employer is defined to include any person directly acting in the interest of an employer. Mo.Rev.Stat (7). Because an employer is prohibited from engaging in discrimination, the plain language of the statute allows for individual liability.
8 A supervisor clearly falls into that category [of persons who can be held individually liable under the MHRA]. Supervisor must have directly oversaw or been actively involved in the discriminatory conduct. Reed v. McDonalds Corp., 363 S.W.3d 134, 139 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012)(when President of the Defendant did not directly oversee the harasser or actively engaged of any of the alleged unlawful conduct, the President could not be held individually liable under the MHRA). Non-supervisory employees no reported appellate cases have ever held a non-supervisor individually liable, but there is no reason that the plain language of the statute could not encompass non-supervisory employees. The Missouri Supreme Court s language that supervisors are clearly liable might suggest that the individual liability provision encompasses significantly more than just supervisors. In addition, in Reed, the Court of Appeals suggested a rule that would seem to impose liability on nonsupervisors who engaged in discriminatory conduct. Id. at (individuals can be held liable under MHRA if they were actively involved in the discriminatory conduct ). VI. VENUE A) Two Potentially Applicable Statutory Provisions: 1. Special Venue Provision under the MHRA, Mo.Rev.Stat : [A]n action [under the MHRA] may be brought in any circuit court in any county in which the unlawful discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred... Under this provision, venue is appropriate in any county in which the decisionmaking process occurred. See Igoe v. The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, 152 S.W.3d 284 (Mo. 2005). 2. General Venue Provision under Mo.Rev.Stat : Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in all actions in which there is any count alleging a tort and in which the plaintiff was first injured in the state of Missouri, venue shall be in the county where the plaintiff was first injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged in the action. (Emphasis supplied). B) With the enactment of Mo.Rev.Stat in 2005 (which was after the Supreme Court s decision in Igoe), it is now unclear whether this general provision supercedes the specific venue provision in the MHRA 1. City of Jennings v. Riley, 236 S.W.3d 630 (Mo.2007)(Court holds that, in tort cases, Mo.Rev.Stat superseded the specific venue
9 provision relating to actions against municipalities such that case against City of Jennings could be brought in City of St. Louis). 2. State ex rel. Hollins v. Prtichett, 395 S.W.600 (Mo.App.S.D. 2013)(Court of Appeals follows the Igoe decision and applies MHRA s specific venue provision to determine proper venue; Supreme Court denies transfer). VII. PUBLIC POLICY WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CASES A) Missouri Supreme Court has recognized a public policy wrongful discharge claim. Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, 2010 Mo. LEXIS 11 (Mo. 2010); Margiotta v. Christian Hospital Northeast, 2010 Mo.LEXIS 12 (Mo. 2010). 1. Such claims may be brought by both at-will employees and employees who have employment contracts. Keveney v. Missouri Military Academy, 2010 Mo. LEXIS 10 (Mo. 2010). 2. Causation standard: An employee must show that his refusal to perform an illegal act or whistleblowing was a contributing factor in his termination. Exclusive causation eliminated. 3. Elements of a Public Policy Wrongful Discharge Claim: the employee engaged in protected activity; Defendant discharged (or took other adverse action against) the employee; Plaintiff s protected activity was a contributing factor in his or her discharge; and as a direct result of his or her discharge, Plaintiff sustained damage. See MAI Types of Protected Activity: refusing to violate the law or any well-established and clear mandate of public policy as expressed in the constitution, statutes, regulations promulgated pursuant to statute, or rules created by a government body. Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, 304 S.W.3d 81, 92 (Mo. 2010); Margiotta v. Christian Hospital Northeast, 315 S.W.3d 342, 346 (Mo. 2010). reporting wrongdoing or violations of law to superiors or public authorities (commonly referred to as whistleblower claims. Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, 304 S.W.3d 81, 92 (Mo. 2010); Margiotta v. Christian Hospital Northeast, 315 S.W.3d 342, 346 (Mo. 2010).
10 acting in a manner public policy would encourage. Delaney v. Signature Health Care Foundation, 376 S.W.3d 55 (Mo.App.E.D. 2012). 5. Persons to whom a report of illegal conduct must be made in whistleblower cases: For an employee s report of illegal conduct to constitute protected activity, the employee must report the conduct to superiors or other proper authorities [such as federal or state officials]. Fleshner, 304 S.W.3d, at 97 n.13. There is no requirement that an employee s report be made to outside authorities. An employee s superior can constitute the proper authority to whom to blow the whistle. Fleshner, 304 S.W.3d, at 97 n.13. It is not protected activity for an employee to report misconduct to the wrongdoer(s); the employee must report to a superior about wrongdoing by other employees. Drummond v. Land Learning Foundation, 358 S.W.3d 167 (Mo.App.W.D. 2011). 6. Showing of a Clear Mandate of Public Policy A plaintiff must show that the alleged misconduct at issue violated a clear and well-established mandate of public policy. Fleshner, 304 S.W.3d at 96; Margiotta, 315 S.W.3d at The existence of a public policy is the legislature s decision to provide a comprehensive statutory scheme to regulate the conduct at issue. Fleshner, 304 S.W.3d at 96 (Missouri Supreme Court emphasized the existence of the statutory scheme that regulates the payment of overtime compensation as a factor relevant to determining whether a well-established public policy exists). X. COMMON DISCOVERY ISSUES IN MHRA LAWSUITS A) Garden Variety Emotional Distress - Dean v. Cunningham, 182 S.W.3d 561, 568 (Mo. 2006). 1. Missouri Supreme Court held that, in a MHRA claim, evidence of [a plaintiff s] medically or psychologically diagnosable mental or physical condition is irrelevant to the question of whether she suffered garden variety emotional distress as a result of the allegedly unlawful acts. 182 S.W.3d at Where the MHRA plaintiff chooses not to offer any evidence that she sought treatment for emotional distress [or] any evidence that she has any
11 diagnosable condition allegedly resulting from the actions of discrimination or harassment then the employer is not entitled to obtained her medical records or seek discovery on her medical/mental condition. 182 S.W.3d at Case provides a plaintiff with choice of whether he wants to provide medical evidence/testimony from treaters or whether he wants to assert a garden variety emotional distress claim and preclude defendant from being able to conduct discovery into client s medical and psychological history. 4. But: If the Employer can show that the medical records or discovery is relevant to some other issue in the lawsuit, then the medical records or discovery may still be discoverable. State ex rel. BNSF Railway Co. v. Neill, 356 S.W.3d 169 (Mo. 2011)(in personal injury case where plaintiff only sought garden variety emotional distress, Missouri Supreme Court nevertheless permitted discovery of plaintiff s psychiatric records when defendant established that those records were relevant to the issue of whether defendant s alleged negligence was the cause of plaintiff s injuries). B) Discovery of Employee Personnel Files - Delmar Gardens North Operating, LLC v. Gaertner, 239 S.W.3d 608 (Mo. 2007). 1. Missouri Supreme Court held that a right of privacy exists in personnel records and that such records should only be produced in a civil action to the extent that the documents produced are limited to information that relates to matters put at issue in the pleadings, especially in relation to sensitive personal information. 239 S.W.3d at , quoting Madlock v. O Malley, 8 S.W.3d 890, 891 (Mo. 1999). 2. Courts should take actions to protect the confidentiality of the personnel records including in camera inspections and protective orders. 239 S.W.3d at As plaintiff s counsel, must narrowly tailor the document requests to seek relevant information and make clear in your petition that certain issues or allegations are at issue. 4. Using Delmar Gardens as a Shield: Limits on Employers Ability to Subpoena Employment Records of Plaintiff: Common practice: Defense counsel will send out subpoenas to companies for the plaintiff worked before and after he/she worked for the Defendant employer. Plaintiff has a fundamental right of privacy in their personnel records, thus, Defendant only has right to issue subpoenas that are limited to information that relates to matters put at issue in the pleadings, especially in relation to sensitive personal information. 239 S.W.3d at , quoting Madlock v. O Malley, 8 S.W.3d 890, 891 (Mo. 1999). A subpoena seeking the plaintiff s entire personnel file and any
12 other materials in your possession in any form relating to the employee is clearly improper. Delmar Gardens, 239 S.W.3d at 612; Madlock, 8 S.W.3d at 892. subpoena should be limited to relevant information such as wage information (for subsequent employers), application by plaintiff, information regarding end of employment, if applicable (usually relevant to lost wage claim). Defense counsel is not permitted to send out subpoena for employment records and simply have those personnel records mailed to them; the documents must be produced at a formal deposition, unless you consent otherwise. If defense counsel engages in such conduct, it is an ethical violation. State ex rel. Crowden v. Dandurand, 970 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Mo. 1998)( it is professional misconduct for a requesting attorney to review or otherwise use privileged records that a provider mails contrary to a subpoena requiring production of documents at a deposition. ). C) Discoverability of Information Concerning Similarly Situated Employees 1. In order to demonstrate that protected characteristic was a contributing factor in the alleged harassment or allegedly discriminatory action, a plaintiff must show members within the protected class were exposed to disadvantageous terms of conditions of employment to which [employees outside the protected class] were not exposed. Barekman v. City of Republic, 232 S.W.3d 675, (Mo. App. S.D. 2007). This statement of law should make clear that discovery and evidence relating to how the employer treated other employees outside the plaintiff s protected class are relevant to the plaintiff s claim. Korando v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 239 S.W.3d 647, 650 (Mo.App.E.D. 2007)(in determining whether plaintiff could show that sex was a contributing factor in termination, Court of Appeals found relevant the evidence that other male employees engaged in same conduct as plaintiff but were not fired). Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814, 824 (Mo. 2007) (Missouri Supreme Court finds that plaintiff showed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his disability was a contributing factor in termination decision when he presented evidence that nondisabled employees were not subjected to a fitness-for-duty examination). Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W (Mo.App.E.D.2009) ( instances of disparate treatment can support a claim of pretext so long as the employees are similarly situated. );
13 see also Young v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 182 S.W.3d 647, 654 (Mo.App.E.D. 2005). D. Evidence of Other Acts of Discrimination by Defendant Employer 1. Other allegedly discriminatory/retaliatory actions by defendant employer are relevant to establish that protected characteristic was a contributing factor in adverse action taken against plaintiff employee. Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W (Mo.App.E.D.2009)(in sexual harassment retaliatory discharge case, evidence that employer fired another woman who filed a sexual harassment complaint was relevant to show that employer had a retaliatory animus against plaintiff employee). 2. Evidence of other complaints of sexual harassment is relevant in a hostile work environment case. See Mason v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 91 S.w.3d 738, 743 (Mo.App.W.D. 2002) ( Evidence that a co-worker complained to management about harassment by another co-worker may have probative value of whether management had at least constructive notice of the harassment of a plaintiff. ). XI. REMEDIES A) Economic Damages 1. Unemployment benefits: An employer is not entitled to a reduction of a back pay award or economic damage claim based upon the plaintiff s receipt of unemployment benefits. Echols v. The City of Riverside, 332 S.W.3d 207, 212 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). 2. Collateral source rule applies and such information should not be discoverable. B) Emotional Distress Damages C) Punitive Damages 1. Submissibility Standard: A submissible case is made if the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom are sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the plaintiff established with convincing clarity that is, that it was highly probable that the defendant s conduct was outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference. Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854, 870 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009); Brady v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 213 S.W.3d 101, 109 (Mo.App.E.D. 2006); see also Kelly v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, 245 S.W.3d 841, 849 (Mo.App.E.D. 2007)(public policy wrongful discharge claim). 2. Defendant must have engaged in the unlawful conduct intentionally and with the knowledge that the conduct was unlawful. Williams v. Trans
14 States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854, 870 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009). 3. The same evidence used to establish the underlying discrimination or retaliation can be used to establish the submissibility of punitive damages. Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854, 870 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009). 4. Punitive damages under the MHRA are recoverable against state governmental entities. Brady v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 213 S.W.3d 101, (Mo.App.E.D. 2006). 5. Appellate decisions addressing submissibility of punitive damages: Brady v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 213 S.W.3d 101, (Mo.App.E.D. 2006)(plaintiff made a submissible case of punitive damages when he presented evidence that budget cuts were made to plaintiff s program despite increased revenues, younger employees were treated better than plaintiff with regards to pay, hours, benefits, and employer took other actions designed to humiliate and denigrate plaintiff). Kelly v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, 245 S.W.3d 841, (Mo.App.E.D. 2007)(in whistleblower case, employee made submissible case for punitive damages because the allegedly unlawful action was a wrongful act done intentionally by a manager, the manager knew that the conduct was inappropriate, the manager threatened to fire an employee for reporting him to the police, and employer failed to conduct any meaningful investigation into the complaint of unlawful conduct). Lynn v. TNT Logistics North America, Inc., 275 S.W.3d 304 (Mo. App.W.D. 2008)(in sexual harassment case, employee made submissible case for punitive damages when she presented evidence that employer disregarded its sexual harassment policies and procedures, failed to properly investigate claims of sexual harassment, and had direct knowledge of sexual harassment by supervisor but ignored it). Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W (Mo.App.E.D.2009) (in retaliatory discharge case, employee made submissible punitive damage case when she presented evidence that she had good work record prior to complaint, allegations of poor performance arose after complaint, employer failed to document claims of performance problems, the termination happened close in time to the complaint, and employer fired another women who had complained about sexual harassment). Alhalabi v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 300 S.W.3d 518, 529 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009)(In racially hostile work environment case, plaintiff made submissible case for punitive damages when
By: Gerald M. Richardson
MANAGING THE RISKS POSED BY THE THREE PUBLIC POLICY WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CASES RECENTLY DECIDED BY THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT By: Gerald M. Richardson I. An At Will Employee Can Sue His Employer on a Claim
More informationRecent Developments Impacting Jury Instructions in Missouri Employment Actions
Recent Developments Impacting Jury Instructions in Missouri Employment Actions By James R. Ward, Michael W. Kopp and P. Benjamin Cox 1 Introduction Just over a decade ago, the Missouri Supreme Court caused
More informationLABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE FOR MAY 2016 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE. Timothy L. Davis. Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP www.bwslaw.
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE FOR MAY 2016 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE Timothy L. Davis Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP www.bwslaw.com OVERVIEW FOR 2016 UPDATE Labor Law Court Decisions Employment
More informationTHE GEORGIA NON-PROFIT AND LAWS PREVENTING DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT
THE GEORGIA NON-PROFIT AND LAWS PREVENTING DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT By: Benjamin D. Briggs Anna C. Curry TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 600 Peachtree Street NE Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200 Atlanta, Georgia
More information2.25 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS UNDER THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (SEXUAL AND OTHER HARASSMENT) (05/2015)
2.25 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS UNDER THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (SEXUAL AND OTHER HARASSMENT) (05/2015) The following charge is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Lehmann v.
More informationINVESTIGATIONS GONE WILD: Potential Claims By Employees
INTRODUCTION INVESTIGATIONS GONE WILD: Potential Claims By Employees By: Maureen S. Binetti, Esq. Christopher R. Binetti, Paralegal Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. When can the investigation which may
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:12-cv-02030-DDN Doc. #: 42 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MARY HAYDEN, ) individually and as plaintiff
More informationCase 3:14-cv-00137-AC Document 10 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 43
Case 3:14-cv-00137-AC Document 10 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 43 Calvin L. Keith, OSB No. 814368 CKeith@perkinscoie.com Sarah J. Crooks, OSB No. 971512 SCrooks@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO KEVIN COOPER, ) ) No. ED96549 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court v. ) of St. Louis County ) CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC, ) Honorable
More informationHP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act
PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 597
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 597
california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 8:03CV165 Plaintiff, v. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY and/or OMAHA WOODMEN LIFE INSURANCE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Lorrie Logsdon sued her employer, Turbines, Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 20, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court LORRIE LOGSDON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TURBINES,
More informationCALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656
CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any
More informationMinimizing Employee Retaliation: Do the Right Thing! Ashley E. Bonner, WSO-CST Senior Risk Control Consultant Trident Public Risk Solutions
Minimizing Employee Retaliation: Do the Right Thing! Ashley E. Bonner, WSO-CST Senior Risk Control Consultant Trident Public Risk Solutions Roadmap 1. Definition of Retaliation 2. Frequency & Severity
More informationNURSING HOME CARE ACT INTRODUCTION. The Nursing Home Care Act, 210 ILCS 45/1, et seq., was adopted amid concern over
NURSING HOME CARE ACT INTRODUCTION The Nursing Home Care Act, 210 ILCS 45/1, et seq., was adopted amid concern over reports of inadequate, improper and degrading treatment of patients in nursing homes.
More informationRevised 18 January 2013. The University of Texas at Austin University Compliance Services
The University of Texas at Austin University Hello and welcome. This portion of the Compliance Program will introduce you to the topic of Employment Discrimination, and the University's policies and procedures
More informationHow to Terminate an Employee Lawfully
How to Terminate an Employee Lawfully Todd C. Werts 910 E. Broadway, Ste. B Columbia, Missouri 65201 T: (573) 875-1991 F: (573) 875-1985 werts@learandwerts.com www.learandwerts.com Goals Issue Spotting
More informationUMKC LAW REVIEW DE JURE
UMKC LAW REVIEW DE JURE Vol. 2 Spring 2014 Pages 51-58 OPTIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT LAW CLAIMS IN MISSOURI AND KANSAS COURTS Amy D. Quinn * I. INTRODUCTION A young woman named Sarah arrives at her appointment
More informationEEO 101 The Basic Theories of Employment Discrimination
EEO 101 The Basic Theories of Employment Discrimination An overview of the anti-discrimination statutes enforced by the EEOC An introduction to the theories under which claims of discrimination can be
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District SOUTHERN DIVISION BIRI M. BLEVINS, JOHN T. BUSEY, No. ED99852 AND CHARLES W. JONES, Appellants, Appeal from the Circuit Court vs. of Cape Girardeau County
More informationNo. 1-10-2072 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). SIXTH DIVISION JUNE 30, 2011 IN
More informationMALICIOUS PROSECTION
MALICIOUS PROSECTION DALE JEFFERSON, Houston Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom, L.L.P. State Bar of Texas CAUSES OF ACTION March 30-31, 2006 - Irving April 6-7, 2006 Houston CHAPTER 18 MALICIOUS
More informationAccountability Report Card Summary 2013 Tennessee
Accountability Report Card Summary 2013 Tennessee Tennessee has one of the strongest state whistleblower laws: Scoring 75 out of a possible 100; Ranking 3 rd out of 51 (50 states and the District of Columbia).
More informationFORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION
The plaintiff in Schmidt filed suit against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. ("PAV") and PAV s president, Dennis Smith ("Smith"). 684 A.2d at 68. Her Complaint alleged several causes of action
More information2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U. No. 1-14-1179 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U THIRD DIVISION May 20, 2015 No. 1-14-1179 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationEMPLOYER S LIABILITY FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY SUPERVISORS. Charges of Sexual Harassment Are a Small Business Nightmare Statistics Bare This Out.
EMPLOYER S LIABILITY FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY SUPERVISORS Charges of Sexual Harassment Are a Small Business Nightmare Statistics Bare This Out. Last year, 15,222 charges of sexual harassment were filed
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-10192 Document: 00513409349 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. DARILYN JOHNSON, v. Plaintiff Appellant,
More informationEmployment - Federal Employers Liability Act. EMPLOYMENT FEDERAL RAILWAY SAFETY ACT. LEGAL OVERVIEW (GENERAL)
. EMPLOYMENT FEDERAL RAILWAY SAFETY ACT. LEGAL OVERVIEW (GENERAL) The Federal Railway Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., (the FRSA ) was enacted in 1970 to promote safety in every area of railroad operations
More informationMoreover, sexual harassment is a violation of federal, state and county fair employment laws.
Sexual harassment interferes with a productive working environment, interjects irrelevant considerations into personnel decisions and generally demeans employees who are victims of harassment. Moreover,
More informationTITLE 34. LABOR AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CHAPTER 19. CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT. N.J. Stat. 34:19-1 (2007)
TITLE 34. LABOR AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CHAPTER 19. CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT N.J. Stat. 34:19-1 (2007) 34:19-1. Short title This act shall be known and may [be] cited as the "Conscientious
More informationEmployer Liability for Supervisor Sexual Harassment A Comparison of Federal and State Standards
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 19, Number 4 (19.4.5) Feature Article By: William G. Beatty Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Employer
More informationWendy Musell Stewart & Musell, LLP
Wendy Musell Stewart & Musell, LLP In 2011, the federal government is the Nation's largest employer with about 2.0 million civilian employees. 600,000 employees approximately in the US Postal Service Laws
More informationAnti-discrimination Laws: North Carolina
View the online version at http://us.practicallaw.com/w-000-2332 Anti-discrimination Laws: North Carolina J. TRAVIS HOCKADAY, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, LLP, WITH PRACTICAL
More informationChallenging EEOC Conciliation Charges
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 Challenging EEOC Conciliation Charges Law360, New
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Kauffman, J. April 18, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EVELYN THOMAS v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-5372 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Kauffman, J. April 18, 2008
More informationYou Are Served : Litigation In The Workplace
You Are Served : Litigation In The Workplace Presented by: Wendy J. Mellk, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP 58 South Service Rd., Ste. 410 Melville, NY 11747 (631) 247-0404 mellkw@jacksonlewis.com Copyright 2008
More informationEmployment At-Will and Employment Law Litigation
Employment At-Will and Employment Law Litigation Tara L. Sohlman 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Email: tara.sohlman@cooperscully.com Phone: 214-712-9563 2016 This paper and/or presentation
More informationCardelli Lanfear P.C.
Michigan Prepared by Cardelli Lanfear P.C. 322 West Lincoln Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: 248.850.2179 Fax: 248.544.1191 1. Introduction History of Tort Reform in Michigan Michigan was one of the first states
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1072. Yvette Ford, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Public Schools, Respondent.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1072 Yvette Ford, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Public Schools, Respondent. Filed December 15, 2014 Reversed and remanded Peterson, Judge Hennepin County District
More informationERISA Causes of Action *
1 ERISA Causes of Action * ERISA authorizes a variety of causes of action to remedy violations of the statute, to enforce the terms of a benefit plan, or to provide other relief to a plan, its participants
More informationCase 1:07-cv-00514-GJQ Document 58 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:07-cv-00514-GJQ Document 58 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WALTER E. HARRIS v. Plaintiff, Case No. 1:07-CV-514 HON.
More informationDepartment of Energy No. AL 2014-03 Acquisition Regulation January 6, 2014 ACQUISITION LETTER
G Department of Energy No. AL 2014-03 Acquisition Regulation January 6, 2014 ACQUISITION LETTER This Acquisition Letter is issued under the authority of the Senior Procurement Executives of DOE and NNSA.
More informationThe Basics of Sexual Harassment
The Basics of Sexual Harassment Sexual Harassment is a violation both of Federal Law and the laws of most states. For employers, it is fairly easy to take steps to prevent sexual harassment and to defeat
More informationCase 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
More informationBlowing the Whistle on Accounting Fraud: The Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protections Act At A Glance
Blowing the Whistle on Accounting Fraud: The Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protections Act At A Glance A White Paper for Finance Professionals by David J. Marshall and Nicole J. Williams 1 Katz, Marshall
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-01365-CV
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed April 3, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01365-CV UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellant V. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,
More informationSETTLEGOODE v. PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al CV-00-313-ST JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOLLOWING CLOSE OF EVIDENCE
SETTLEGOODE v. PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al CV-00-313-ST JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOLLOWING CLOSE OF EVIDENCE These instructions will be in three parts: first, general rules that define and control your duties
More informationRetaliation and Whistleblower Claims
Retaliation and Whistleblower Claims 2012 Labor and Employment Relations Law Seminar Thomas W. Scrivner TWScrivner@michaelbest.com This presentation is intended for general information purposes only and
More informationA CONSUMER GUIDE TO FAIR LENDING
FAIR HOUSING LEGAL SUPPORT CENTER A CONSUMER GUIDE TO FAIR LENDING AND HOME OWNERSHIP PRESERVATION A CONSUMER GUIDE TO FAIR LENDING AND HOME OWNERSHIP PRESERVATION OVERVIEW This guide explains your right
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. 09-CV-956 JEC/DJS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. No. 09-CV-956 JEC/DJS TRICORE REFERENCE LABORATORIES, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationThe Impact of Social Media on Damages in Employment Litigation. By: Angie C. Davis and Mary Wu
The Impact of Social Media on Damages in Employment Litigation By: Angie C. Davis and Mary Wu Everyone Facebook stalks - even (or shall I say especially) plaintiff and defense lawyers in Employment lawsuits.
More informationWISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT LAW
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT LAW An Employer's Guide to Legal Proceedings SKINNER AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES Welcome Thank you for considering Skinner and Associates to represent your interests. Your satisfaction
More informationHow Much Protection Does the Oregon Tort Claims Act Really Provide?
How Much Protection Does the Oregon Tort Claims Act Really Provide? Session Materials by Jens Schmidt Harrang Long Gary Rudnick P.C. Oregon Public Risk Manager s Fall Conference October 3, 2013 Salishan
More informationPresented by: Matthew S. Brick Maria E. Brownell Brick Gentry, P.C.
Presented by: Matthew S. Brick Maria E. Brownell Brick Gentry, P.C. Two Rules for Today: Rule #1 No Good Deed Goes Unpunished! Two Rules for Today: Rule #2 If It Wasn t Written Down, It Didn t Happen!
More informationAccountability Report Card Summary 2013 New Mexico
Accountability Report Card Summary 2013 New Mexico New Mexico has a pretty strong state whistleblower law: Scoring 72 out of a possible 100 points; Ranking 4 th out of 51 (50 states and the District of
More informationSUMMARY OF KEY PROVISIONS UNDER FEDERAL, STATE, and CITY EEO LAWS
SUMMARY OF KEY PROVISIONS UNDER FEDERAL, STATE, and CITY EEO LAWS I. PROTECTED CATEGORIES Protected Classes 42 USC 2000e-2(a)-(c) Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national
More information2013 Employment Law Update: What are the Courts Saying? Anthony M. Hohn Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP
2013 Employment Law Update: What are the Courts Saying? Anthony M. Hohn Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP Road Map I. What is Title VII? II. Litigation and Enforcement Trends III. Significant Case
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 93-1789. George S. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 93-1789. George S. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Sept. 26, 1994. Appeal from the United States
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO BUSEY TRUCK EQUIPMENT, INC., No. ED93091 Appellant, Appeal from the Circuit Court of vs. Cape Girardeau County AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,491 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 10/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ED AGUILAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B238853 (Los Angeles County
More informationCase 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 E. JENNIFER NEWMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-21435-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF vs. Plaintiff
More informationBILL ANALYSIS. C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Civil Practices Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
BILL ANALYSIS C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Civil Practices Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE C.S.S.B. 1309 gives the State of Texas civil remedies to be invoked by the attorney general
More informationIN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT MISSOURI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellant, WD70666 vs. Opinion Filed: December 8, 2009 ONEOK, INC., et al., Respondents. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: DECEMBER 7, 2012; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED ORDERED PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 8, 2013; 10:00 A.M. Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2011-CA-000990-MR RANDY PEZZAROSSI APPELLANT APPEAL
More informationKEEP CALM CALL MVP AND 2014 MVP LAW SEMINAR GLOBAL RELEASES: EMPLOYMENT ISSUES IN WORKERS COMPENSATION. www.mvplaw.com
2014 MVP LAW SEMINAR GLOBAL RELEASES: EMPLOYMENT ISSUES IN WORKERS COMPENSATION www.mvplaw.com KEEP CALM AND CALL MVP DALLAS JULY 17TH KANSAS CITY AUGUST 7TH ST. LOUIS SEPTEMBER 25TH THE IMPACT OF A WORKERS
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division IN RE: WILLIAM G. DADE ) Case No. 00-32487 ANN E. DADE ) Chapter 7 Debtors. ) ) ) DEBORAH R. JOHNSON ) Adversary
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : ORDER AND MEMORANDUM O R D E R
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SETH ROBBINS, VERN COOLEY Plaintiffs, v. PHILADELPHIA SPORTS CLUB Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-2676 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM O
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc Robert E. Fast, M.D., et al., Appellants, vs. No. SC89734 F. James Marston, M.D., Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUCHANAN COUNTY Honorable Weldon C. Judah,
More informationWHO'S ON THE FIRING LINE? TIPS FOR AVOIDING WRONGFUL/RETALIATORY DISCHARGE CLAIMS by William R. Hanna
WHO'S ON THE FIRING LINE? TIPS FOR AVOIDING WRONGFUL/RETALIATORY DISCHARGE CLAIMS by William R. Hanna I. INTRODUCTION A. Union members were only 7.2% of the private sector work force in 2009, down from
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSENT DECREE. Introduction
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMMISSION, et al, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 04-4126 ) THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC. ) ) Defendant.
More informationProcedure, Evidence & Jurisdiction in EEOC Lawsuits
ALI-ABA Course of Study Evidence Issues and Jury Instructions in Employment Cases Cosponsored by Georgetown CLE February 9-10, 2006 Washington, D.C. Procedure, Evidence & Jurisdiction in EEOC Lawsuits
More informationAccountability Report Card Summary 2013 Pennsylvania
Accountability Report Card Summary 2013 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has a passable state whistleblower law: Scoring 61 out of a possible 100; Ranking 17 th out of 51 (50 states and the District of Columbia).
More informationCase 4:03-cv-00624-Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1822
Case 4:03-cv-00624-Y Document 197 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1822 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION GOD'S CHARIOT, L.P. VS. ACTION NO. 4:03-CV-624-Y
More informationETHICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW. Judith E. Harris. whether to provide representation and/or indemnification for individual employees;
ETHICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW I. INTRODUCTION Judith E. Harris In today s workplace, employers are increasingly subject to lawsuits involving multiple defendants. This trend is most often evidenced
More informationSection 3.2 of HB 2 and Its Impact on Wrongful Discharge Claims
North Carolina Law Before HB 2 Section 3.2 of HB 2 and Its Impact on Wrongful Discharge Claims Since 1985, workers in North Carolina who have been fired for a reason that offends the State s public policy
More informationIntroduction (916) 653-0799 (800) 952-5665.
Introduction On January 1, 2000, California's Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) (Government Code sections 8547 et seq.) was significantly amended. The Legislature amended this law to strengthen protections
More informationPURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b),THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE. T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-156 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RONALD W. RAMEY AND JONI J. RAMEY,
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CHAPTER 2: GUIDELINES FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, CIVIL PENALTIES, AND ATTORNEY S FEES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT OF 1977 4 DCMR 200 et seq. (1999)
More informationAN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To amend the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to make the District s false claims act consistent with federal law and thereby qualify
More informationEMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT
ENDORSEMENT NO: This endorsement, effective 12:01 am, policy number forms part of issued to: by: THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT
More informationAccountability Report Card Summary 2013 Massachusetts
Accountability Report Card Summary 2013 Massachusetts Massachusetts has a relatively good state whistleblower law: Scoring 64 out of a possible 100 points; and Ranking 11 th out of 51 (50 states and the
More information2016 IL App (1st) 152359-U. SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016. No. 1-15-2359 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st 152359-U SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016 No. 1-15-2359 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationFLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE
FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE INTRODUCTION Rebecca Floyd-Tunnell and Doris Floyd ( Appellants ) filed suit against Shelter Mutual Insurance
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 14-mc-0052 DECISION AND ORDER
EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. Case No. 14-mc-0052 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
Wojciechowski v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P. Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION SARINA L. WOJCIECHOWSKI, Plaintiff, VS. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P.,
More informationFALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE
33 U.S.C. 3729-33 FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE 31 U.S.C. 3729. False claims (a) LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN ACTS. (1) IN GENERAL. Subject to paragraph (2), any person who (A) knowingly presents, or causes
More informationA Bill Regular Session, 2015 SENATE BILL 830
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. State of Arkansas 90th General Assembly A Bill Regular Session, 2015 SENATE BILL 830 By: Senator D. Sanders
More informationAugust 2007 Education and Membership Development Department
August 2007 Education and Membership Development Department Table of Contents Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 3 What is Sexual Harassment? 3 4 How Can Sexual Harassment Occur? 4 5 When is an
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted June 18, 2015 * Decided July
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Jerry Keeler felt that his employer, ARAMARK, didn t appreciate his
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 21, 2013 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT QUINCEY GERALD KEELER, a/k/a Jerry, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationGLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS Sources: US Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html New York State Unified Court System: http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml Acquittal A
More informationCase 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SANDRA H. DEYA and EDWIN DEYA, individually and as next friends and natural
More informationCase 1:15-cv-07513-RMB-AMD Document 1 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1
Case 1:15-cv-07513-RMB-AMD Document 1 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1 Law Offices of Swati M. Kothari, LLC Swati M. Kothari, Esq. 712 East Main Street, Suite 2A Moorestown, New Jersey 08057 (856)
More informationBILL ANALYSIS. Senate Research Center C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Jurisprudence 4/5/2007 Committee Report (Substituted)
BILL ANALYSIS Senate Research Center C.S.S.B. 1309 By: Wentworth Jurisprudence 4/5/2007 Committee Report (Substituted) AUTHOR'S / SPONSOR'S STATEMENT OF INTENT C.S.S.B. 1309 gives the State of Texas civil
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-148 (HL) ORDER
Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
More information2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC
More informationCAMBRIDGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY SPECIAL REPORT
CAMBRIDGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY SPECIAL REPORT EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE What It Is and Why You Need It This Special Report was written by Susan Lumetta, J.D., LIC. Mrs. Lumetta is Vice-President
More information