Springs v. Mayer Brown, LLP Despite significant evidence that plaintiff was performing poorly as an associate at the defendant-law firm, not long before a partner fired her, the same partner filed an affidavit with the New York State Court, Appellate Division, regarding plaintiff’s performance and suitability as a “waive-in” candidate for admission to the New York Bar. In that affidavit, the partner averred that he supervised plaintiff and that her duties were “satisfactorily” performed. This is some evidence that the law firm’s proffered reason for firing plaintiff - poor job performance - was a pretext for discrimination.
Satterwhite v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. N.C. courts have not recognized a public policy exception to the at-will employment rule based on a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
EEOC v. Great Steaks Inc. Although an employer won a judgment on a jury verdict in this Title VII sexual harassment suit alleging complaints by a waitress, the district court did not err in denying the employer’s motion for attorney’s fees; the EEOC’s case survived dispositive motions, and the 4th Circuit upholds the district court finding that the EEOC’s position was not frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.
Minor v. Bostwick Laboratories Inc. A medical technologist’s complaints within her company about time-sheet alterations that allegedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act are protected activity, and she may sue under the FLSA’s antiretaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), on a complaint that she was terminated for her intracompany complaints.
Mancinelli v. Momentum Research, Inc. Plaintiff abruptly left her job, taking an immediate leave of absence and notifying her supervisors of this leave through a letter which instructed the defendant-employer not to contact her; moreover, plaintiff failed to inform her supervisors of the status of the project on which she was working prior to her departure and refused to turn over information related to the project. The employer had cause to terminate plaintiff pursuant to § 5(a) of the parties’ employment contract (“Employee’s failure or refusal to perform his or her job duties or other breach of a material term of this Agreement”).
Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Where the complaint alleges that plaintiffs were discriminated against based on their gender as a result of subjective decisions made at the local store level, they cannot satisfy the commonality requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ class action claims is granted.
Plaintiffs allege that defendant discriminates on the basis of sex by paying female store managers less than male store managers.
Lee-Thomas v. Prince George’s County Public Schools A school board employee in Maryland can sue the board under the Americans with Disabilities Act for an alleged failure to accommodate her hearing disability, as the state has waived its 11th Amendment immunity for claims of $100,000 or less; the 4th Circuit upholds the district court decision allowing the claim to go forward.
Fortier v. Principal Life. Ins. Co. A physician who closed his practice when he became medically disabled cannot collect the maximum monthly disability payment he says he is owed under the practice’s long term disability policy, as the plan administrator was entitled to interpret plan language to allow deduction of the physician’s medical-practice start-up costs from his income to determine that the monthly disability payment could not exceed the physician’s monthly predisability earnings...
Peabody Holding Co. LLC v. United Mine Workers of America, Int’l Union The 4th Circuit upholds the district court order requiring the parties to arbitrate the United Mine Workers’ limited job-preference agreement with a coal company, as the appellate court concludes the coal company has not rebutted the ordinary presumption in favor of arbitrability.
ISCO Industries v. Erdle The plaintiff-employer contends that, in the 36-month time frame of the parties’ covenant not to compete, the defendant-sales manager would normally generate tens of millions of dollars in sales and profits for plaintiff. Since the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) is satisfied if either a gain or a cost exceeds $75,000, and since the parties are diverse, this court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim of a breach of the parties’ covenant not to compete.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.
