Quantcast

Tag Archives: Misconduct

Labor & Employment – Civil Rights — Discrimination Claims – Discharge – Dishonesty & Work Record (access required)

Shipman v. United Parcel Service, Inc. : Even though an employer/labor union review panel found that the defendant-employer had failed to prove that plaintiff was dishonest, the panel upheld her termination based on an unacceptable work record. The fact that the panel found one of the reasons for plaintiff’s discharge not to be proven does not mean (1) that the employer’s decision-makers did not believe plaintiff had engaged in dishonest conduct or (2) that her discharge was because of her race, age, or sex.

Read More »

Tort/Negligence Slip & Fall – Personal Injury – Grocery Store – Grape on Floor (access required)

Rankin v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP Because Plaintiff has made sufficient factual allegations to support a plausible claim, Plaintiff’s Complaint is adequate to survive a motion to dismiss at this early state of the litigation. Plaintiff alleges that while she was a lawful guest/shopper at Defendant’s business, she slipped and fell on a grape, injuring herself and resulting in substantial medical bills.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies – Military Separation (access required)

Barley v. Garrett Plaintiff was in the process of obtaining a medical discharge from the U.S. Army when he was convicted of taking indecent liberties with a child, and proceedings were instituted to involuntary separate him from the Army for misconduct. Although plaintiff contends the Army lacks the authority to order him to return to duty, he has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him within the Army; therefore, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Read More »

Criminal Practice – Jury & Jurors – Misconduct – After Verdict – Mistrial Denied (access required)

State v. Hester After the jury returned its verdicts, two jurors saw defendant’s brother cursing and complaining about the outcome of the trial, and they told the other jurors about the incident; furthermore, one juror discussed the trial with an individual who had been a spectator at defendant’s trial (that juror was removed prior to the sentencing deliberations). Since these incidents occurred after the verdict, there is no indication that juror misconduct had any potential effect upon the deliberations. Accordingly, defendant did not demonstrate prejudice as to the jury’s determination of his guilt.

Read More »