Jump to Navigation

Posts tagged "Summary Judgment"

Green v. Town of East Haven, No. 18‐0143 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2020)

The Second Circuit analyzes a claim that an ADEA plaintiff was "constructively discharged," that is, compelled to retire or resign against their will. The panel holds that a threat of imminent termination for supposedly stealing a canister of poppin' fresh biscuits was enough to support such a claim.

Rasmy v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., No, 18-3260 (2d Cir. Mar. 6, 2020)

The Second Circuit reminds courts that it is not necessary for a Title VII harassment plaintiff to prove specifically that there was physical contact, that their work performance suffered, or that they were personally targeted for harassment to prove that there was a "severe or pervasive" hostile work environment.

Morrissey v. Laurel Health Care Co., No. 18-1704 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2019)

Some courts are still ruling on ADA cases as if the 2008 amendments never occurred. The Sixth Circuit reverses summary judgment in a case where the district court placed too high a burden on the plaintiff to prove she was disabled.

Ford v. Marion County Sheriff's Office, No. 18-3217 (7th Cir. Nov. 15, 2019)

The Seventh Circuit's opinion contains useful guidance for employees suffering disability discrimination and harassment. One key takeaway: plaintiffs should not be quick to assume - in charging, pleading and proving a hostile-work-environment claim - that harassment always constitutes one continuing violation. "[A] substantial passage of time without incident known to the employer, a change in the employee's supervisors, [or] an intervening remedial action by the employer" may break the chain.

Tesone v. Empire Mktg. Strategies, No. 19-1026 (10th Cir. Nov. 8, 2019)

It's surprising that the district courts continue to get this wrong: the Tenth Circuit reverses summary judgment in an ADA case because the judge erroneously held that the plaintiff needed expert testimony to prove that she was disabled with a back injury.

Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists, P.C., No. 19-5148 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2019)

A nurse is fired, supposedly for clinical errors, but an email is circulated to staff saying that she was fired because she "has been having major issues with her eyesight and as of late, it has seemed to be getting even worse." The Sixth Circuit finds that the email and other evidence present a triable case of regarded-as disability discrimination under the ADA.

Cruz v. McAleenan, No. 17-5113 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 2019)

The D.C. Circuit remands a summary judgment in a Title VII case, holding that the district court erred in not allowing the plaintiff to get discovery on whether "white . . . or male employees, were disciplined less severely for the sort of behavior for which Cruz was disciplined."

Stepp v. Covance, Inc., No. 18-3292 (7th Cir. July 26, 2019)

Here's a terse reminder that when an employer's supposedly "legitimate, non-discriminatory" reason for an adverse action is utterly contradicted by the undisputed timeline, then summary judgment most likely ought to be denied.

Mayorga v. Merdon, No. 18-5045 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 2019) and Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol, No. 17-5252 (D.C. Cir. July 2, 2019)

AOC in employment-law news: the Architect of the Capitol loses two Title VII appeals in the past week, both cases involving claims of denial of promotions due to national origin. Both shared the detail that supervisors allegedly mocked the plaintiffs because of their accents.

Figueroa v. Pompeo, No. 18-5064 (D.C. Cir. May 10, 2019)

Federal courts seldom pause on the second stage of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test, whee the employer proffers its allegedly legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for taking adverse action against an employee. But in this case, the D.C. Circuit holds that it is not enough for the employer to simply advance a facially-neutral process without showing how it was specifically applied to the employee. This case could have special application in promotion and other processes involving large numbers of people and subjective criteria.

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 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-638-8800
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
601 Massachussetts Avenue NW
Second Floor West Suite 200W
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-847-4400
Map and Directions