Jump to Navigation

Posts tagged "9th Circuit"

Mayes v. WinCo Holdings, No. 14-35396 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2017)

This takes the cake: an employee on the night shift at an Idaho supermarket is accused of (and fired for) taking a cake from the bakery's "stales cart" without permission to serve to co-workers. The Ninth Circuit thinks that a jury could find management's story unpalatable, though, and remands it for a trial.

Reynaga v. Roseburg Forest Products, No. 14-35028 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2017)

A Ninth Circuit panel holds, in a Title VII and Oregon state law case, that an employer's breaking into a work locker constitutes a materially adverse employment action. The panel also splits - 2-1 - over whether the employer failed to take appropriate steps to stop alleged racial harassment, and whether it disproportionately punished the plaintiff by firing him (for leaving the workplace) while taking no action against the harasser.

Santana-Diaz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 15-1273 (1st Cir. Mar. 14, 2016); Arizona ex rel. Horne v. The Geo Group, No. 13-16081 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2016)

Here are two employment cases about second-chances. A plan participant who filed an ERISA claim too late under a contractual limitations period is rescued by a decision that the plan violated its duty by not telling the participant about the shortened deadline. The EEOC wins a second opportunity to advance claims on behalf of a class of female victims of harassment, in the wake of Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015).

State of Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, No 11-17484 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2014) (en banc)

The Ninth Circuit, ruling en banc, overrules a prior panel decision and holds that the BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), ratio test for excessiveness of punitive damages is essentially unnecessary for evaluating a capped award under Title VII governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D).

Smith v. Clark County School Dist., No. 11-17398 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2013)

Employees with disabilities are sometimes caught between the desire to work and the need to apply for public or short-term disability benefits for survival purposes. The Ninth Circuit does a good job in explaining how these are not necessarily in conflict, reversing summary judgment in an Americans with Disabilities Act case where a school teacher had to apply for disability retirement.

Quin v. County of Kauai Dep't of Transporation, No. 10-16000 (9th Cir. July 24, 2013)

Under the law of several federal circuits, employment-discrimination and other plaintiffs who omit their claims as estate assets in Chapter 7 bankruptcy are held to forfeit them under the legal theory of "judicial estoppel" - a rule that prevents litigants from taking inconsistent positions in successive proceedings. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, stakes an entirely new position, contrary to this consensus: provided that the claimant omitted the claim by mistake or inadvertence, and re-opens the bankruptcy proceeding to correct the omission, there will be no estoppel. A dissenting judge vigorously objects to this plaintiff-friendly rule.

Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods, No. 11-55265 (9th Cir. July 18, 2013)

Though slightly off the employment-beat, this Ninth Circuit decision may be useful to our readers, for the important and simple lesson that an Americans with Disabilities Act plaintiff does not necessarily need an expert to testify about architectural barriers. As the panel majority writes, "Perhaps we've become too expert-prone."

Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors, No. 11-16001 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2013)

An employer that strenuously denied that it fired an employee who complained about sex harassment finds itself short-handed on appeal. The Ninth Circuit - in a 2-1 decision - reverses summary judgment in this Title VII harassment and retaliation case, holding that an employer that fails to offer a reason or explanation for a termination decision creates an issue of fact for the jury to decide.

Sheppard v. Evans And Assoc., No. 11-35164 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2012)

The Ninth Circuit reminds courts that the notice pleading standard for garden-variety employment discrimination cases remains low under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and that a simple three-page complaint can suffice.

subscribe to this blog's feed subscribe to this blog's feed

tell us about your case

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

facebook twitter linked in

our office locations

Outten & Golden LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor  
New York, NY 10017  
Phone: 212-245-1000
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
161 North Clark Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Il 60601  
Phone: 312-809-7010
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-638-8800
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
601 Massachussetts Avenue NW
Second Floor West Suite 
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-847-4400
Map and Directions