Jump to Navigation

Posts tagged "Jury"

Phillips v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., No. 10-60585 (5th Cir. Sept. 22, 2011)

An age discrimination plaintiff wins a $48,000 judgment at trial, only to lose it - in a 2-1 vote - before a panel of the Fifth Circuit, which holds that judgment should have been entered for the employer on limitations grounds. As Judge Higginbotham's dissent points out, the issue of who decides such issues is paramount.

Dulin v. Board of Commissioners of the Greenwood LeFlore Hospital, No. 10-60095 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2011)

In a highly unusual development, a panel of the Fifth Circuit reverses itself in an employment discrimination case, in favor of the plaintiff. It had previously affirmed a Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law granted to the employer - a public hospital - in a § 1981 race discrimination case, but in a two-page per curiam order, it announces that it is vacating and remanding the case back for trial.

Tuli v. Brigham & Women's Hospital, No. 09-1597 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2011)

A jury finds that a promising woman neurosurgeon was bumped off-track by a campaign of sex harassment and retaliation, in violation of Title VII and Massachusettes civil rights law. The First Circuit affirms awards of $600,000 against the Hospital in compensatory damages on the retaliation claim and $1,000,000 in compensatory damages against it on the hostile work environment claim (with lesser awards for other state law claims), and $1,352,525.94 in attorneys' fees.

Román-Oliveras v. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, No. 09-1503 (1st Cir. Aug. 18, 2011); Jones v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 09-5786 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) (non-precedential)

Today we log two wins for ADA "regarded as" disability discrimination claimants. In the First Circuit, the panel holds that a district court too hastily dismissed a complaint of disability discrimination, alleging that the employer refused to assign a mentally-ill employee anywhere in the workplace. In the Sixth Circuit, the panel (in an unpublished opinion) astoundingly overturns a jury verdict for the employer - and orders entry of judgment for the employee - where the company placed the plaintiff on involuntary medical leave based solely on an unclear state-court order and without an independent examination of the employee.

McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, No. 09-3567 (3d Cir. Aug. 17, 2011)

Here's our first published opinion addressing the recently-decided Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011), in the context of a fully-tried case. The Third Circuit holds in this Title VII case that the district court did not err in denying judgment as a matter of law for the city. It concludes that the jury could have found that the plaintiff's Police Board of Inquiry hearings (which led to his termination) did not break the chain of causation from the retaliatory write-up that commenced the disciplinary process.

Black v. Pan American Laboratories, No. 09-51092 (5th Cir. July 11, 2011)

A Fifth Circuit panel unanimously affirms a jury verdict for a woman sales representative who suffered discrimination in compensation and termination, in violation of Title VII and Texas state law. The panel divides, though, on the question of the appropriate back pay remedy. It also divides on the question of how to apply the compensatory and punitive damage caps in a multiclaim case under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)

Valle-Arce v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, No. 10-1102 (1st Cir. July 8, 2011)

One of the critical stages in many disability discrimination cases is when the employee gets a new manager or supervisor, who does not understand - or is insensitive to - an accommodation formerly extended to a person with a disability. As this First Circuit case reveals, a botched switch in the gears can create a triable issue of fact for a jury about whether the employee was denied reasonable accommodations.

Breeden v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 10-7073 (D.C. Cir. July 8, 2011)

After a fired employee wins a $289,669 jury verdict in an Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation case, the district court takes it away on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, on the ground that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence that the claimed retaliation (reshuffling her accounts) actually caused her termination three years later. The D.C. Circuit affirms. The case presents a cautionary tale for a plaintiff who claims that a loss/reassignment of accounts caused further, more serious harm down the road.

Hernández-Miranda v. Empresas Díaz Massó, Inc., No. 10-1639 (1st Cir. June 29, 2011); King v. University Healthcare System, L.C., No. 09-30794 (5th Cir. June 28, 2011)

Two plaintiffs win at trial and, on appeal, achieve differing results. In the First Circuit, a Title VII plaintiff improves on her win by persuading the court (with an assist from the EEOC as amicus) that the number of employees in the "current or preceding calendar year" - for purposes of setting the damage cap under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3) - is based on the number of employees at the time of the act of discrimination, rather than at the time of trial. In the Fifth Circuit, the employee keeps her Equal Pay Act award, but loses a state statutory wage claim.

Staub v. Proctor Hospital, No. 08‐1316 (7th Cir. May 23, 2011)

On March 1, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's grant of judgment as a matter of law for the employer in a Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) case (131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011)), where a jury found the company liable for discrimination under that act. In an unpublished coda, the Seventh Circuit remands the case for a new trial, and along the way tweaks the high court's opinion a bit.

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