A senior executive wins a jury trial for retaliation under the ADEA and Massachusetts state law, with an award of back and front pay, emotional distress damages and liquidated (double) damages. The First Circuit substantially preserves the judgment against the employer and affirms injunctive relief to restore plaintiff to the company's benefit plans, though it tamps down the compensatory damage award on grounds of excessiveness.
The Sixth Circuit returns a Title VII case for trial, concerning claims that the City of Toledo discriminated against an African-American manager in work assignments, pay and evaluations, and also retaliated against him because he assisted another employee in complaining to the city about race discrimination. The panel holds that the district court applied too strict a standard at the pre-trial stage of the case, demanding proof that the "real" reason for the adverse actions was race discrimination. It also holds that at trial on the retaliation claim, the district court erred by excluding evidence of "other acts" targeting co-workers for the same activities.
Here's two decisions from the Eighth Circuit coming off Rule 50 orders granting judgment as a matter of law to employers. In the first, the court reverses, holding that There was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that an employee was constructively discharged by being knocked down from a title as finance coordinator to the board to a job in food service. In the second, an FMLA retaliation case, the plaintiff does not prevail -- but the court says something very important about proof at trial.
It is uncommon for a losing party to persuade a U.S. Court of Appeals panel to reverse its outcome on a motion for rehearing, but the age discrimination plaintiff in this case pulled it off, winning a remand (in a 2-to-1 decision) of his claim for a trial under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA).
Employment lawyers know that it is commonplace for national employers to remove private, state-law employment discrimination cases from state to federal court, whenever there are diversity-of-citizenship grounds to do so. Here's the next step - the Ninth Circuit (2-1) approves removal of a suit commenced by a state civil rights agency in state court, holding that it is the citizenship of the employee - the real party in interest - that counts for diversity purposes.