Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query employment returned 19623 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	OPINION/ORDER She was forced to engage in sexual relations with Stephen Wiggins. Although she was never told that she would be fired. Holly D. asserts that there was an implication that her continued employment depended on her complying with the professor's unwelcome sexual advances. We join the Second Circuit in holding that a plaintiff who contends that she was coerced into performing unwanted sex HOLLY D. v. Even when the supervisor is the person who engaged in the underlying wrongful conduct. Because different and complex issues of state law are presented by the other claims contested on appeal. She was promoted to Senior Division Assistant for Professor Stephen Wiggins in Caltech's Control Dynamic Systems department. On occasion showed her pornographic websites although he would eventually cease these activities when Holly D. told him that she was not interested. If Wiggins were to request that she engage in sex with him. She would have to comply in order to keep her job. The circumstances surrounding the liaison are hotly contested.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs was George M. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Per Curiam: This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Was briefed and argued by counsel. It is hereby Ordered and Adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Who is employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction over Luce Forward's timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. His employment was at will. Will be heard before a retired State or Federal judge in the county containing the firm office in which you were last employed. The law of the State in which you last worked will apply. That he
	OPINION/ORDER Part II (Adverse Employment Action) of the majority opinion was joined by BOGGS. Part IV (Punitive Damages) was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by BOGGS. We decide that a thirty seven day suspension without pay constitutes an adverse employment action regardless of whether the suspension is followed by a reinstatement with back pay. In which position Ellis earned more pay than he would have if he had continued working in the forklift position. White was the only female working in the Maintenance of Way department at the Tennessee Yard. White's immediate supervisor was foreman Bill Joiner. He also admitted that he did not believe that the Maintenance of Way department was an appropriate place for women to work. Joiner repeatedly expressed this belief to her while she was working under his supervision. Another Burlington Northern employee agreed at trial that there was
	02-1102 -- HILLIG V. RUMSFELD -- 08/27/2004 Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER We reject the Summers rule in favor of one circumscribing the use of after acquired evidence to the remedies phase of an employment discrimination suit brought pursuant to Title VII or ADEA.[fn2] We will therefore reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment to Harleysville. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[FN3] Harleysville hired Mardell as a Branch Life Manager in February 1988 to manage insurance agents.[fn4] Mardell appears from the record to have been an accomplished life insurance agent. Who was being promoted out of the position at Harleysville for which Mardell would be hired. Shelow was familiar with Mardell's work at Prudential and felt that she would excel as a Life Manager for Harleysville. Even though at the time he imposed the probation Mardell's work was improving and she had surpassed the yearly goal he had set for her (A 76 78. Who then was 52 years old. Contending instead that gender and/or age discrimation was the cause.
	OPINION/ORDER Flying J argues that there was no tangible employment action when it fired but then re hired plaintiff Kyle Keeton the same day and when it laterally transferred Keeton to a different location. We conclude that the termination was not a tangible employment action but that a reasonable jury could have decided that the transfer was a tangible employment action. He stated that he was willing to relocate to other Flying J travel plazas. Judy Harrell was the General Manager and his immediate supervisor. Even though Keeton was not scheduled to work on December 4. Harrell told him that he was fired. Keeton had no warning that his job was in jeopardy. Abdalla had been the manager of the district encompassing Walton when Keeton was hired. In December of 2001 Abdalla was the district manager of another district that included Cannonsburg. His termination was formally changed to a two week suspension. Abdalla told him that he was being
	OPINION/ORDER The concept of a tangible employment action is distinct from that of a materially adverse employment action which is a necessary element of a prima facie case under Title VII. Courts have yet to address the differences between them. It is worth noting generally that because Ellerth and Faragher create a rule of strict liability. A tangible employment action was also defined by reference to a non exclusive list of possible actions:
	OPINION/ORDER Francisco Vasquez is a Deputy Probation Officer. DKC is a detention facility for youth who have committed less serious crimes. The DPOs are assigned to a particular cottage or to the field. Vasquez was assigned to
	OPINION/ORDER Burch was responsible for providing von Gunten with on the job training. The boat was a small. Stared at and touched various parts of her body against her will. Von Gunten asserts that Steinfort was unsympathetic to her complaints and demanded that she return to the boat the next morning or be fired. Steinfort maintains that von Gunten's charges against Burch were
	OPINION/ORDER Rosebud Reservation tribal officer Kenneth Michael Scott was returning from a work related training seminar in New Mexico. Scott came upon Lesa Primeaux walking toward Martin because her car was stuck in a snowbank. Finding that Scott's tortious conduct was not committed within the scope of his employment as a matter of South Dakota law. Concluding that apparent authority is not a basis for FTCA liability in South Dakota. That the rape was not within the scope of Scott's government employment. I. The FTCA is a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity. The parties agree that the determination of whether Scott was acting within the scope of his employment is governed by the law of the State where the tort occurred. That is the situation we encounter in this case. This proposition was open to question under the FTCA as initially enacted. Was construed as resolving the issue. The United States is substituted as defendant if the Attorney General certifies the employee acted
	OPINION/ORDER Freeman was Supervisor of Customer Service at the Murfreesboro. He was fifty two years old at the time. Salaried employees of the Postal Service each have a ranking on the
	WRIGHT V. SOUTHLAND CORP. (9/3/1999, NO. 97-3458) We conclude that direct evidence of employment discrimination is evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude. That an adverse employment action was taken against the plaintiff on the basis of a protected personal characteristic. Wright was the manager of a 7 11 convenience store in Kissimmee. At which time he was discharged. The Southland Corporation owner of the 7 11 chain asserts that it fired Wright because of continuing merchandise control problems. Wright argues that he was discharged in retaliation for his filing of a claim of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
	WRIGHT V. SOUTHLAND CORP. (9/3/1999, NO. 97-3458) We conclude that direct evidence of employment discrimination is evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude. That an adverse employment action was taken against the plaintiff on the basis of a protected personal characteristic. Wright was the manager of a 7 11 convenience store in Kissimmee. At which time he was discharged. The Southland Corporation owner of the 7 11 chain asserts that it fired Wright because of continuing merchandise control problems. Wright argues that he was discharged in retaliation for his filing of a claim of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
	OPINION/ORDER Claiming that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment because of her sex and age and in retaliation for her complaints of such discrimination. I. Ethel Hill was hired by Lockheed as an aircraft sheet metal mechanic in 1987. Thomas Prickett was Lockheed's program manager in charge of the contract field teams and Archie Griffin was the East Coast senior site supervisor for Lockheed. They were rarely present at the individual military jobsites. Hill and the other aircraft mechanics were directly supervised by a
	EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. JOE'S STONE CRAB (8/4/2000, NO. 98-5367) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER A liberal reading of Dotson's pro se appellate brief suggests that he raises the following challenges to the judgment of dismissal: (1) the district court should not have ruled 2 on the dismissal motion without hearing oral argument. (5) the court erred in ruling that Dotson's Bivens claim for money damages and his equitable action for reinstatement were precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (
	CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838) Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Steinke is a former SFS employee. SIS was a multi service company whose primary business involved providing software and related services to self clearing broker dealers. Steinke was the President and Chief Executive Officer of SIS. Phase3 was renamed SunGard Brokerage Systems. When Wismer told Steinke that he understood SIS was well run and that he could use that type of management at Phase3. Mann also told Steinke during the meeting that if Steinke was to work for SFS. He would have one year to get to know the operations of Phase3 and two years after that to
	EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. JOE'S STONE CRAB (8/4/2000, NO. 98-5367) Circuit Judge:
	CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838) Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.
	OPINION/ORDER Who is Hispanic. Griffith complains that he was suspended and then denied retraining. As some district courts have concluded. The third step in the McDonnell Douglas analysis must be modified
	OPINION/ORDER WILL ACKLES. North Puget Sound Presbytery (together the
	HADDON SEAN V. USA
	OPINION/ORDER A consolidated hearing was held before an administrative law judge. Is engaged in the business of road construction. Brandt 1 The background summary contained in this section of the opinion is based on the findings of fact made by the ALJ. Which were affirmed by the Board in toto. 2 Brandt is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2). The company attempts to fill any open positions with these
	DAVIS V. TOWN OF LAKE PARK (3/26/2001, NO. 00-10305) Alleges that he suffered adverse employment action based on race in the form of two corrective job performance memos placed in his personnel file and two instances where he was temporarily removed as the designated officer in charge (
	DAVIS V. TOWN OF LAKE PARK (3/26/2001, NO. 00-10305) Alleges that he suffered adverse employment action based on race in the form of two corrective job performance memos placed in his personnel file and two instances where he was temporarily removed as the designated officer in charge (
	OPINION/ORDER The germane facts are not in dispute.[fn1] Upsala is a small. Freyberger are. As a matter of convenience we usually will refer to the college and the individual defendants collectively as Upsala. Freyberger was at the meeting and saw Nelson. Funk wrote to Nelson stating that she was no longer permitted on campus due to her termination as an Upsala College employee.[fn2] Freyberger also wrote Nelson that she was no longer permitted on campus and that it would be necessary for her to obtain prior approval from Upsala before entering its campus. The court determined that Nelson's defamation claim was barred by the New Jersey statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Affidavits demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Upsala is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The
	OPINION/ORDER The parties consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case. 15525 15526 ENLOW v. Is amended as follows: The second paragraph on slip op. 7621 that reads: We affirm the denial of his motion because we conclude that Yellow Cab presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether it terminated Mr. Enlow failed to present prima facie evidence that Yellow Cab acted with a discriminatory motive or intent. is deleted. Enlow's employment was intended to be temporary or permanent. Whether Yellow Cab acted pursuant to a facially discriminatory employment practice to discharge employees over seventy years old. is deleted. Enlow's employment was permanently terminated solely to save costs. Stated that
	OPINION/ORDER This case asks us to decide whether the general knowledge test component of New York State's public school teacher certification program is racially discriminatory in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs are public Page 2 of 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 employees. The essence of their claim is that the New York State Education Department (
	OPINION/ORDER Stavropoulos was employed pursuant to a one year contract. Is not necessarily binding. The dean and assistant dean of the School of Art have the power to override the faculty vote. Was the best qualified. Who was already employed in the School of Art. She felt that they were treating Dr. LeBlanc was the most qualified candidate. Tindall and Stavropoulos told Director Firestone that they were going to file a minority report with the Dean of the School of Art. Asserted that as most of 3 the faculty members in the computer field were men. Stating that she may have been the victim of gender discrimination in the selection of the computer artist. Several of the faculty members who voted for non renewal stated that they voted this way because Stavropoulos was not collegial but was insulting and hostile to her fellow faculty members. Stavropoulos was given an employment contract for the 1995 96 academic year. Stavropoulos was due for a third year review. An evaluation conducted at the end of every tenure track teacher's third year which examines how that teacher is progressing towards being awarded tenure.1 Director Firestone chose the four review committee members.
	DOE V. DEKALB COUNTY SCH. DIST. (7/17/1998, NO. 97-8915) Who is infected with HIV. Because it fears that Doe might have blood to blood contact with one of his sometimes violent students. The District has
	JOHNSON V. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON BROAD. SERV. (11/29/2000, NO. 99-6078) Since the district court will have subject matter jurisdiction over a federal claim upon our remand. WENN was ranked as the number one or two station in the Birmingham market for some period of years before 1996. Continued or repeated verbal abuse of a nature which is ... sexual ... No one should imply or threaten that an applicant's or employee's cooperation or refusal to participate in sexual involvement or discriminatory activity will have any effect on that individual's employment. All complaints will be promptly and thoroughly investigated and corrective action. Will be taken.
	OPINION/ORDER Since the district court will have subject matter jurisdiction over a federal claim upon our remand. WENN was ranked as the number one or two station in the Birmingham market for some period of years before 1996. Continued or repeated verbal abuse of a nature which is ... sexual ... No one should imply or threaten that an applicant's or employee's cooperation or refusal to participate in sexual involvement or discriminatory activity will have any effect on that individual's employment. All complaints will be promptly and thoroughly investigated and corrective action. Will be taken. Donnell would cut off Johnson's microphone while they were on the air. Listeners thought it sounded like Donnell and Johnson were fighting on the air. Owens further testified that Donnell said
	OPINION/ORDER Kessler contends that he had adduced evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact to be tried as to whether the changes in his employment were materially adverse. That summary judgment was thus inappropriate. As the party against whom summary judgment was granted. Kessler was assigned to work in DSS offices located in White Plains. Kessler was assigned to DSS's central administrative office. [Kessler's] loyalty to DSS was in question and that senior staff members were concerned that [Kessler] was not a part of the team and could not be trusted.
	DOE V. DEKALB COUNTY SCH. DIST. (7/17/1998, NO. 97-8915) Who is infected with HIV. Because it fears that Doe might have blood to blood contact with one of his sometimes violent students. The District has
	JOHNSON V. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON BROAD. SERV. (11/29/2000, NO. 99-6078) Since the district court will have subject matter jurisdiction over a federal claim upon our remand. WENN was ranked as the number one or two station in the Birmingham market for some period of years before 1996. Continued or repeated verbal abuse of a nature which is ... sexual ... No one should imply or threaten that an applicant's or employee's cooperation or refusal to participate in sexual involvement or discriminatory activity will have any effect on that individual's employment. All complaints will be promptly and thoroughly investigated and corrective action. Will be taken.
	OPINION/ORDER OPINION PER CURIAM: We examine whether a false imprisonment that caused the victim to lose employment and employment opportunities is an injury to
	OPINION/ORDER Was awarded compensatory damages for lost earnings. At least to the extent such earnings were based on pay rates in the United States rather than in the worker's native country. Affordable and Mountain are now joined by third party defendant Silva. 3 In addition. Arguing that the document relied on by these third party plaintiffs to support their indemnification claim is not an enforceable contract. Is not authorized by IRCA under any circumstance. (2) it was the employer rather than the worker who knowingly violated IRCA in arranging for the employment. (3) the jury was instructed to consider the worker's removeability in deciding what. Because we conclude that appellants' and cross appellants' other arguments are also without merit. Madeira's Employment and Injury Plaintiff Jose Raimundo Madeira 1 is a citizen of Brazil who illegally entered the United States in 1998. Madeira was earning approximately $15 per hour in the United States and working as many as 50 hours per week. Such action was apparently unnecessary given his brother's willingness to hire him despite knowing Madeira's undocumented status.
	OPINION/ORDER Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. Claiming that she was unlawfully terminated
	OPINION/ORDER We hold the district court correctly concluded Delaware's statute of frauds barred Lindsey's breach of contract claim and we will affirm that part of its order. That the district court should have applied the three year statute of limitations to her commission claim. We will therefore reverse the part of the district court's order granting summary judgment to Zeccola on Lindsey's claim for a sales commission.[fn1] I. Lindsey worked for another broker on a straight commission basis but was looking for a position which would provide her with a steadier income. Lindsey informed Zeccola she was not willing to work weekends and Zeccola responded he did not expect her to do so. Lindsey told Zeccola neither proposal was acceptable. Below this information were two columns. Said
	LLAMPALLAS V. MINI-CIRCUITS, LAB, INC. (12/28/1998, NO. 95-5258) Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. Claiming that she was unlawfully terminated
	LLAMPALLAS V. MINI-CIRCUITS, LAB, INC. (12/28/1998, NO. 95-5258) Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. Claiming that she was unlawfully terminated
	OPINION/ORDER Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. Claiming that she was unlawfully terminated
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Donald Scott Lagatree was refused employment as a legal secretary by Luce. Both cases are closely on point.'
	OPINION/ORDER The United States was substituted as the sole defendant and the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the United States had sovereign immunity from suit. Was serving as Director of the Echocardiography Laboratory at the N.I.H. when the complained of incidents began. The defendants were his colleagues. Maron discovered that Fananapazir was engaging in what Maron believed to be scientific misconduct. Maron's specific allegations are detailed in his complaints and include assertions that the doctors removed him from positions of power in the Lab. Told patients that he was no longer employed at the N.I.H. It is noteworthy that. The district court denied Maron's attempts to challenge the certification because our circuit law at the time held that certifications were dispositive on the issue of substitution and were not judicially reviewable. The district court eventually dismissed Maron's complaint pursuant to the Feres doctrine and on the ground that suit against the United States is barred by sovereign immunity.
	OPINION/ORDER The panel reasoned that Pallas no longer controlled because it was inconsistent with intervening Supreme Court authority governing retroactivity principles. Because we conclude that Pallas is not
	OPINION/ORDER 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
	WESSON V. HUNTSMAN CORP. (3/17/2000, NO. 99-10491) Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the grant by the district court
	WESSON V. HUNTSMAN CORP. (3/17/2000, NO. 99-10491) Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the grant by the district court
	OPINION/ORDER I would hold that plaintiffsappellants have raised legitimate fact questions on whether additional employees should be counted. We affirm. acknowledge the existence of facts in the record (elicited from defendant's own agents) which directly contradict its present claim that the employees were part time. Whichever is shorter. 1991 were full time employees. Twenty one of the 27 employees at issue here were returned to layoff on August 5. Johnson (whose regular layoff date is July 22. 1991) is shown as returning to layoff after voluntary recall on August 19. These record statements made by defendant appellee create a genuine issue of material fact concerning the full time status of at least 13 or as many as all of the 27 employees who were returned to layoff following voluntary recall between August and September 1991. Appellee is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of this alternative argument. It is the appointed finders of fact who alone are permitted to sort through such conflicting evidence.
	OPINION/ORDER Is bound by a private arbitration agreement between the charging party and his employer. Other circuits are split on the proper response to this question. Recognizing that the EEOC is vested with enforcement authority both to seek broad based injunctive relief in the public interest and to seek
	OPINION/ORDER Goodkin were on brief. Davis were on brief. The question raised is whether Congress intended to prohibit enforcement of pre dispute arbitration agreements covering employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a matter of law in all cases or at least under certain facts said to be present here. The form itself did not state which claims were to be arbitrated. Rather referred to the rules of various organizations with which Rosenberg was registering. When her employment was later terminated. Was not an adequate forum due to what the district court called
	OPINION/ORDER P.A. were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. Falsely stated and implied to the local and national news media that Daniel Aversa was involved in laundering illegally gotten money. Found the statements to have been
	OPINION/ORDER We held that an earlier policy requiring probationers
	OPINION/ORDER Michigan state law presumes that employment is at will. Mannix's employment contract expressly provided for employment at will. This letter expressly described the position as
	OPINION/ORDER Because the en banc court is evenly divided. Elite failed to verify that all of its new employees were authorized to work in the United States. Zamora was a Mexican citizen who had been a permanent legal resident of the United States since 1987. Zamora also filled out an I 9 form truthfully indicating that he was a Mexican citizen and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Elite received a tip that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)(3) was going to investigate warehouses in the area. Elite was particularly concerned about such an investigation in light of its earlier hiring practices in June 2000. This investigation indicated that someone other than Zamora had been using the same social security number that he was using.(4) The investigation turned up similar problems with thirty five other employees' social security numbers. Tucker followed this same procedure with the other thirty five employees whose social security numbers raised concerns.(5) The memorandum Tucker gave Zamora and the other affected workers read: It is required by federal law that all employees produce documents.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court granted the judgment after concluding that the farmworkers presented insufficient evidence that they were
	OPINION/ORDER Was employed by the District of South Dakota (DSD) as an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA). I Higgins is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Higgins was the only Native American AUSA in the Rapid City office and was one of three Native American employees in the state. Her duties were split evenly between the CIRCLE Project3 and prosecuting criminal cases. Higgins reported this statement to Interim USA Michelle Higgins's position was always a two year term position. She was informed at the outset of her term it would expire in August 2001 and she would have to apply for a new position in order to continue working for the DSD. The Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and Law Enforcement (CIRCLE) Project was a Department of Justice initiative designed to enhance tribal justice systems. 23 2 Tapken. Higgins claims Kohn asked
	OPINION/ORDER Robinson alleges that she was sexually harassed by appellee James Dickerson (her supervisor) and that appellees Craig Edwards (an assistant police chief) and Earl Buford (the chief of police) knew of the harassment but failed to take action to stop it. Robinson was assigned to a drug suppression unit commanded by then 2 Lieutenant Dickerson. Describing the position in which he and Robinson would have sex if they were to do so. Robinson testified that she never acceded to any of Dickerson's sexual advances or reciprocated any of his sexual remarks and that she made it clear to him that his conduct was unwelcome. Robinson approached Assistant Chief Edwards to inquire about a transfer to the detective bureau (which would have been a promotion). Was one of two second in command officers who reported directly to Chief Buford. 585 86) Robinson testified that she told Edwards that she thought Dickerson
	OPINION/ORDER Robinson alleges that she was sexually harassed by appellee James Dickerson (her supervisor) and that appellees Craig Edwards (an assistant police chief) and Earl Buford (the chief of police) knew of the harassment but failed to take action to stop it. Robinson was assigned to a drug suppression unit commanded by then
	MENDOZA V. BORDEN, INC. (11/16/1999, NO. 97-5121) Mendoza's employment ended because she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling to explain her absence as required by Borden's written personnel policies. During most of her tenure with Borden. Mendoza's supervisor was Daniel Page. Page was the highest ranking Borden employee at the facility. The plant where the milk was processed constituted the majority of the facility. She testified that: the man was constantly watching me and following me around and looking me up and down. Whether it was face to face with me or as I would get up from a lunch table or from the picnic table to walk away and to go back to the office. Later. Mendoza further explained Page's conduct: He seemed to be wherever I was in the plant. He was at a lunch table in the lunch room. When I was face to face with him. Mendoza reiterated that Page's following and watching
	MENDOZA V. BORDEN, INC. (11/16/1999, NO. 97-5121) Mendoza's employment ended because she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling to explain her absence as required by Borden's written personnel policies. During most of her tenure with Borden. Mendoza's supervisor was Daniel Page. Page was the highest ranking Borden employee at the facility. The plant where the milk was processed constituted the majority of the facility. She testified that: the man was constantly watching me and following me around and looking me up and down. Whether it was face to face with me or as I would get up from a lunch table or from the picnic table to walk away and to go back to the office. Later. Mendoza further explained Page's conduct: He seemed to be wherever I was in the plant. He was at a lunch table in the lunch room. When I was face to face with him. Mendoza reiterated that Page's following and watching
	OPINION/ORDER Wilson was appointed after this case was orally argued en banc. Is an active member of the court at the time the case is decided. The opinion for the Court on her sexual harassment claim is joined in full by Chief Judge Anderson and Judges Edmondson. Mendoza's employment ended because she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling to explain her absence as required by Borden's written personnel policies. Mendoza's supervisor was Daniel Page. Page was the highest ranking Borden employee at the facility. The plant where the milk was processed constituted the majority of the facility. She testified that: the man was constantly watching me and following me around and looking me up and down. Whether it was face to face with me or as I would get up from a lunch table or from the picnic table to walk away and to go back to the office. Mendoza further explained Page's conduct: He seemed to be wherever I was in the plant. He was at a lunch table in the lunch room. When I was face to face with him.
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Stating that Darr was
	OPINION/ORDER When that payment was not made. The district court determined that this dispute was governed by an arbitration clause in the employment agreement and granted Travelbyus' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Rosenblum was the principal owner of Muffin Communications. Muffin was a travel related media business that. Rosen 1 The parties to the Acquisition Agreement are Mr. Kerby was the chief executive officer of Travelbyus.com. Is a Delaware corporation. The relationship between these parties is not revealed by the record and is not material to the issues in this appeal. Kerby and the American Travelbyus.com were not appropriate defendants in this action. This agreement was memorialized in a contract that was executed on July 20. Rosenblum was to receive a total of $7 million in cash and Travelbyus stock in exchange for Muffin. 000 in cash at the closing and was due to receive the balance on December 15. Rosenblum was to receive one million shares of Travelbyus stock on December 15. At the time the agreement was executed.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	OPINION/ORDER Leavitt is automatically substituted for his predecessor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to We affirm the judgment of the district 2 BACKGROUND Joseph. [DA 607] The primary role of CSOs is to maintain the safety of the nation's supplies of food. The FDA received an anonymous telephone call alleging that Joseph had been using cocaine for the last three years and that he was using a government vehicle to purchase the drug. Police were called to Joseph's residence. 239 40] Both of the arresting officers believed that Joseph was under the influence of some substance other than alcohol. 239 40] [DA 237 38. That he was a habitual user of the drug. Was identified as the March 14 caller. [DA 244] Douglas gave the FDA her name and said she was Joseph's live in girlfriend. Asserting that the attack was a result of her having reported Joseph to the FDA. [DA 244] Joseph was arraigned on felony assault charges on March 22. [DA 168] 4 Joseph was placed on administrative leave. Said that her head injuries could also have been self inflicted.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This appeal is before the court for rehearing in banc to clarify the proper standard for a jury charge in a pretext case alleging age discrimination.[fn1] Defendant Insurance Company of North America (
	JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563) We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
	ANTENOR V. D & S FARMS This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Antenor v. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-5375.man.html">BLEDSOE V. PALM BEACH COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST. (1/22/1998, NO. 96-5375)<BR></A><BR> We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>BACKGROUND</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Bledsoe was employed as a Resource Technician for the District from January 1988 until his termination in October of 1992. Against the District and Palm Beach County alleging that both of those entities were his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051222p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Died before it was released. 2 1 Attorney for Appellant Evan C. The ministerial exception was created to protect church autonomy and avoid entangling government in religious affairs. Where otherwise illegal discrimination is based on religious belief. Or the internal regulations of a church is simply the exercise of intolerance. Demoted her because she is a woman and because 5 she opposed sexual harassment by Gannon officials. A motion such as Gannon's is more properly dealt with under Rule 12(b)(6). We will therefore reverse the dismissal of her Title VII claims. What we deal with here is functionally a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. 6 2 religion clauses removed jurisdiction. We cannot conclude at this stage of litigation that these claims will require an examination of matters of faith. They are not barred by the religion clauses.3 I. The facts set forth below are drawn from Petruska's First Amended Complaint. Gannon University is a Catholic diocesan college located in Erie. Petruska was appointed permanent chaplain on July 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-5375.man.html">BLEDSOE V. PALM BEACH COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST. (1/22/1998, NO. 96-5375)<BR></A><BR> We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>BACKGROUND</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Bledsoe was employed as a Resource Technician for the District from January 1988 until his termination in October of 1992. Against the District and Palm Beach County alleging that both of those entities were his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-4292.opa.html">ANTENOR V. D & S FARMS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Antenor v. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR> We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1770p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Our standard of review is plenary. 1113 (3d Cir. 1993). 3 several lawsuits against it by former employees.2 Plaintiffs are former Prudential sales agents who brought suit alleging that Prudential took adverse employment action against them in alleged retaliation for their refusal to participate in the company's insurance sales fraud. Arguing that Prudential could not invoke Form U 4 because it is not a party to that agreement. The district court held that Prudential could seek to enforce the arbitration agreement even though it is not a signatory to Form U 4. The court nevertheless held that the exception applied on the ground that plaintiffs' claims are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CDCC3B9E1F72B2D488256E5A00707AE0/$file/9915895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm because we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that the California Supreme Court will hold that an employer can assert an affirmative defense under certain circumstances to a claim that a supervisor has sexually harassed the plaintiff in violation of FEHA. I Kohler was employed as a project coordinator with InterTel from August 18. InterTel is a single source provider of telephone. Kohler was responsible for programming telephone systems at customer sites and training customers on how to use the Inter Tel telephone system. Saying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AD352B54CA55A99688256A2B005CE63C/$file/9915895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm because we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that the California Supreme Court will hold that an employer can assert an affirmative defense under certain circumstances to a claim that a supervisor has sexually harassed the plaintiff in violation of FEHA. I Kohler was employed as a project coordinator with InterTel from August 18. InterTel is a single source provider of telephone. Kohler was responsible for programming telephone systems at customer sites and training customers on how to use the Inter Tel telephone system. Saying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30927.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * I The facts are undisputed. Dorothy Surratt was an employee of LCCI is the owner of a gaming ship that operates on the Mississippi River in Baton Rouge. Surratt was attacked in the employees' parking lot and raped in her car. The distance from the employees' lot to the casino is about 400 yards. The question is whether Ms. The district court's subject matter jurisdiction was based on diversity. Louisiana law applies. novo.1 Our review of the summary judgment is de 1 In re Endeavor Marine Inc. The principal criteria for determining course of employment are time. A court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/952012P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nash Finch argues the district court erred in holding (1) Kim's claim that he was unlawfully denied a promotion from leadman to foreman in November 1990 was actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (2) there was sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination. (3) there was sufficient evidence of retaliation. (4) there was sufficient evidence of malice or reckless indifference to support punitive damages. (5) the jury verdict awarding damages for lost wages and compensatory damages was supported by sufficient evidence or. Was not excessive. BACKGROUND FACTS Nash Finch is a wholesale and retail food distributor. During the period of time at issue Bill Mund was the warehouse superintendent. Transportation are each supervised by a salaried </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4093.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that (continued...) 2 No. 02 4093 The district court dismissed the JIB as a party be cause it was immune from suit in federal court. The remaining defendants asserted that summary judgment was appropriate because Ms. They were entitled to qualified immunity. The JIB is composed of board members ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914563.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Robinson mandates the conclusion that Gonzales is no longer good law and must be deemed overruled. Appellant is eligible to file suit under Title I. Who was then the manager of a K Mart store in Tampa. Employees who are disabled due to a mental illness may receive salary replacement benefits for two years. After which K Mart responded by filing a motion to dismiss on two grounds: (1) that appellant was not within the protective ambit of § 12112(a) because. He was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C1697FEB1BFBC71E88256F89005DF4D4/$file/0335297.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the arbitration agreement between Circuit City and Al Safin is unconscionable under Washington state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). Al Safin was required to sign an arbitration agreement entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0726p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She also contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in dismissing her retaliation claim because she was no longer an employee of the school district at the time the allegedly retaliatory conduct occurred. We will reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment on the retaliation claim and remand for its consideration on the merits. Falsely implied that the district's hiring practices were influenced by the sexual persuasion of the people to be hired or promoted or the sexual relationship administrators had with these people. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-3087.htm">00-3087 -- HINSDALE V. ANDERSON -- 08/28/2001<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1246.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Goodkin were on brief. Davis were on brief. The question raised is whether Congress intended to prohibit enforcement of pre dispute arbitration agreements covering employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a matter of law in all cases or at least under certain facts said to be present here. The form itself did not state which claims were to be arbitrated. Rather referred to the rules of various organizations with which Rosenberg was registering. When her employment was later terminated. Was not an adequate forum due to what the district court called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/986368B.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employees acted with the manifest intent to obtain a financial benefit for themselves or a third person (subsection b's requirement) Given the standard of manifest intent described above. Wefirst will address in this section the scope of the latter requirement. It is important to note that the plain language of that subsection indicates that an insured may meet its requirements in two ways. F&D contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because the individual defendants' actions do not satisfy either aspect of subsection (b). We will address its arguments separately below. i. Merkle and Ridder committed their fraudulent or dishonest 50 acts because they were motivated by a desire to obtain the golden handcuff payments. That DeVany was motivated by his desire to receive a $1. F&D claims that there is no evidence indicating that Ridder. It is evident that the clause beginning with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/09A4D16644F713028825727C0057465C/$file/0535170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon's Criminal Injuries Com ENGQUIST v. Contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Contending that a jury verdict from a coworker's similar trial in state court should have been given preclusive effect. Or that it should have been admitted into evidence. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Engquist's constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Engquist was hired in 1992 as an international food standards specialist for the Export Service Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr97/94-4878.op2.html">FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Faragher v. Including designating work assignments and supervising physical fitness routines.<p> The Marine Safety Section was organized according to a clear chain of command. Who was directly supervised by the Recreation Superintendent. Marine Safety Headquarters was at the beach </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr97/94-4878.op2.html">FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Faragher v. Including designating work assignments and supervising physical fitness routines.<p> The Marine Safety Section was organized according to a clear chain of command. Who was directly supervised by the Recreation Superintendent. Marine Safety Headquarters was at the beach </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2276.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury was unable to reach a verdict. Miller's two basic contentions on appeal are that the district court erred in granting summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law to AAA New Mexico on her various claims. We will not discuss them further. <hr> judgments are highly similar and require that we view the facts in the light most favorable to the non moving party. Her position was officially classified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0262a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The following facts are drawn from Smith's complaint. Smith is and has been. Smith biologically and by birth a male is a transsexual and has been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0160p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The following facts are drawn from Smith's complaint. Smith is and has been. Smith biologically and by birth a male is a transsexual and has been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0386p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Graham asked Mitchell whether he was considering early retirement and Mitchell stated that he had no intention of retiring at any time. Graham's discriminatory attitude towards older employees was first observed in late 1997. Graham allegedly asked Dao whether he was ready for retirement. Graham allegedly told Dao that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1881p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Nuveen is required to register with the NASD all employees who deal directly with the public in the purchase and sale of over the counter 2 securities. Approximately four months after she was hired. Seus was required to sign a Form U 4. Claim or controversy that may arise between me and my firm . . . that is required to be arbitrated under the rules. Conditions and covenants of the . . . by laws and rules and regulations of the [NASD] as they are and may be adopted. With the exception of disputes involving the insurance business of any member which is also an insurance company: (1) between or among members. Although the NASD Code in effect in 1982 did not explicitly state that employment disputes were subject to arbitration. The Code was amended in 1993 to do so. We will address. Whether there is a binding agreement to arbitrate between the parties and. Whether this dispute is within the scope of that agreement. We will then determine whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Seus's motion for discovery from the NASD. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BE4E7A7BFEA490488256EAF0053EE8F/$file/0235881.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The parties consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case. 7617 7620 ENLOW v. Enlow contends that he was entitled to summary judgment because he presented direct evidence that Yellow Cab permanently discharged him solely because of his age. Enlow's motion for partial summary judgment to raise a genuine issue of material fact requiring that the parties have their day in court to determine which party should prevail. It is undisputed that Yellow Cab purchased the insurance policy from Meadowbrook Insurance Group because the cost of its new product. Was more than $10. Yellow Cab's liability coverage under the Star Insurance policy was scheduled to take effect on June 25. The same date that its Reliance Insurance policy was due to expire. Was scheduled to begin making monthly payments on that policy on July 1. Ch. 30.124 requires as follows: Whenever any . . . policy of insurance is required in connection with any license required by this title. Upon receiving information that such . . . insurance is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981637.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bender is a doctor of internal medicine and has maintained a private practice in Rockville. Bender and other physicians with staff privileges created a coverage group agreement pursuant to which they covered for each other when a member of the group was unavailable. Various strategic decisions of both sides to this case have narrowed the issue on appeal to one: whether Bender's complaint for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956778.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 7 U.S.C. § 499h(b): (1) whether the employment bar provision is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. (2) whether a licensed employer can challenge a previous determination that an employee is barred from employment by a licensee. (3) whether a thirty day suspension of the employer's license was legally warranted and factually justified. Jimmy Mims ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/971726P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An at will employment state. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 1 discharged municipal at will employee does not have a section 1983 substantive due process occupational liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. The City of Advance did not have a written employment agreement with Officer Singleton. Officer Singleton's employment was terminable at will. Defendant Don Cecil was Advance's police chief. Della Price were members of Advance's city council. Was not a named defendant. This statement was recorded by David George. His free speech allegation rested on the premise that he was discharged in an effort to keep him silent concerning Chief Cecil's car purchase. The district court also found that Officer Singleton could not prevail There is no contention on appeal that this interception was illegal or that George was targeting conversations between Joann and Sabrina. As an at will employee. The district court held that Officer Singleton's claims that he was deprived of his rights of intimate association and marital privacy failed because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56C719714DFDA7E2882571C60051018D/$file/0456703.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a senior foreign service officer seeking to avoid exposure to personal liability for an automobile accident that occurred in Russia while he was driving home from work in his personal vehicle. Kent sought certification from the Department of Justice that he was acting KASHIN v. Concluded that Kent was not acting within the scope of employment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude in this interlocutory appeal that District of Columbia law governs the question of whether Kent was acting within the scope of employment. We hold that Kent was acting within the scope of employment when he was involved in the automobile accident. Kent was the highest ranking United States representative in that district. He was fully accredited as a diplomat and entitled to the fullest extent of consular immunity. The budget and fiscal officer at the Moscow Embassy informed Kent that the Department of State wished to reduce the expenses of its missions overseas and indicated that the overtime expenses for Kent's personal driver were high due to Kent's late hours at work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/98-5392.man.html">GUPTA V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (5/17/2000, NO. 98-5392)<BR></A><BR> Finding that the Board was liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on either the sex discrimination or the retaliation claim. The district court should have granted the Board judgment as a matter of law on both claims. Srabana Gupta<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/98-5392.man.html">GUPTA V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (5/17/2000, NO. 98-5392)<BR></A><BR> Finding that the Board was liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on either the sex discrimination or the retaliation claim. The district court should have granted the Board judgment as a matter of law on both claims. Srabana Gupta<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71928588C713BB218825729E0076C115/$file/0456809.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Was on the brief. The training agreement specifies that CRST will pay for the first two phases of a student's training. WERNER ENTERPRISES 3189 after this one (1) year period shall be at will and may be terminated at any time by either CRST or Employee. . . . 4. If Employee is terminated without Due Cause. Employee is forgiven for the amount due under paragraph 6. Or (2) Employee's employment is terminated for Due Cause. 600.00 will be immediately due and payable by Employee to CRST. ... 6. Informing Werner that both Spencer and Chatman were employed pursuant to contracts with noncompetition clauses that would last another 300 days. CRST learned that Spencer and Chatman had accepted truck driver positions with Werner.2 CRST alleged that Werner's hiring of Spencer and Chatman were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-16402.opn.html">ARRIAGA V. FLORIDA PAC. FARMS, L.L.C. (9/11/2002, NO. 01-16402)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-16402.opn.html">ARRIAGA V. FLORIDA PAC. FARMS, L.L.C. (9/11/2002, NO. 01-16402)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following class:5 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1307.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence presented by the parties demonstrates </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0115p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ryan's is a Delaware corporation. Ryan's argued that Plaintiffs federal court claims were foreclosed by the arbitration agreements that each had executed at the outset of their employment. Holding that there was inadequate consideration for the arbitration agreements. The agreements were not founded upon mutual assent. The court also held that the arbitration forum provided for in the agreements is not able to provide for effective vindication of statutory claims and is an inappropriate substitute for the judicial forum. The second page of the packet notifies the applicant that he or she is required to complete and sign the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1556.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 21. P.A. were on brief. P.A. was on brief. Smith testified that she was considered to be a de facto manager who. Bond nonetheless honored Smith's request and assured her that her position was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414462.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs appellants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1395p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hutchinson was a member of the original panel which heard argument in this appeal on January 24. Before the appeal was resolved. Chief Judge Sloviter was designated to serve in his place on the reconstituted panel. Judge Sarokin heard argument but retired from office prior to the issuance of the opinion. It is clear that the language of Title VII is violated when an employer makes an employment decision based upon an employee's race. That Title VII's prohibition against racial discrimination is not violated by affirmative action plans which first. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/95-6778.opa.html">BAMA TOMATO CO. V. U.S. DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bama Tomato Co. v. 7 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0190p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. United States was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Both lawsuits were certified as class actions and differ only in minor respects not relevant here. Were tenured public school teachers employed by the Dowagiac Union Public School District (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/95-6778.opa.html">BAMA TOMATO CO. V. U.S. DEP'T OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bama Tomato Co. v. 7 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-4155.htm">96-4155 -- GUNNELL V. UTAH VALLEY STATE COLLEGE -- 08/19/1998<BR></A><BR> Claiming that she was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that she was denied a medical leave of absence in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1D4FB9758086EF9688256F0B005928DD/$file/0216537.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Porter alleged that she was the victim of continuing sexual harassment. She asserts that the district court erred in holding as a matter of law that her sexual harassment claim was barred because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/021425P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that she was unlawfully discriminated against in her employment on account of her gender and in retaliation for filing a sexual harassment complaint. The claims were tried before a magistrate judge and a jury. I. Sellers was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Air Traffic Control Specialist at Lambert Airport in St. Sellers alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment beginning in 1996 and lasting through the time of her termination in 1997. Who was also employed at Lambert. The workplace atmosphere at Lambert deteriorated as Sellers was subjected to on the job harassment. Sellers' case was tried during March 2000. When she was still employed by the bank. Would have a direct impact on the plaintiff's motion [for equitable relief]. The district court concluded that reinstatement was impractical because of the level of acrimony still present between Sellers and her coworkers. The Secretary argues that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Sellers front pay because her post termination conductthat is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986600.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1313.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. Change footnote 3 to read: change Both parties refer us to this Guidance although it was published after the decision by Cyro to reject Grenier's application. We note that a revised version of the Guidance was issued October 10. When an employer could reasonably believe that an applicant will need reasonable accommodation to perform the functions of the job. Jamieson & Nelson was on brief for appellant. Jernigan and Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon were on brief for appellee. District Judge. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986600.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyNDItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9242-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that judgment as a matter of law was inappropriate as to the hostile work environment claim because 1) the plaintiff appellant alleged harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and a sufficient basis for imputing the offending conduct to her employer. 2) the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on an affirmative defense as to which they bore the burden of proof. We conclude that judgment as a matter of law was appropriate as to the plaintiff appellant's retaliation Decided: June 14. Greta Fairbrother presented significant evidence of sexual harassment that was sharply disputed by her employer. The following facts are either undisputed. Whiting is divided into six units. Forensic Treatment Specialists are assigned to work on specific units during one of three specific shifts. Fairbrother was the only female working the second shift on Unit One. Unit One was permeated with hostility toward her. Much of it was of a sexual nature. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-3343.htm">02-3343 -- O'SHEA V. WELCH -- 11/25/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/306C92E509E2EB7C88256DCE00769E27/$file/0235398.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I1 Because this case was decided on summary judgment against Appellants. Arboireau was contacted by Yannick Morat. Who was leaving his position in Portland. Mignano expressed that he was dissatisfied with Morat's decision to leave the Position after only a few months. Mignano repeatedly emphasized that he was seeking someone who would commit to stay in the Position for at least two. Mignano did not guarantee or promise that Arboireau would have the Position for at least 24 months. Were under the impression that the offer was for a minimum of 24 months. The draft proposal deemed the employment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are employees of the City of Altus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Approximately 29 City employees are Hispanic. All Plaintiffs are Hispanic and bilingual. Received a complaint that because Street Department employees were speaking Spanish. Other employees could not understand what was being said on <hr> the City radio. Sanchez was particularly concerned that his subordinates. The letter informed Nettles that employees had not been given proper notice if this was a new administrative policy and questioned whether Willis and the City had followed proper procedures in implementing the new policy. Sanchez reported that Willis had told him that the reason Hispanics speak Spanish </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/061067P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was terminated without cause following a change of control within CPI. The parties were unable to resolve the remaining issues. Accompanied by full payment of the purchase price of the shares with respect to which the option is exercised. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1955p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Once its hopper compartments were full. The dredge would secure itself to a pipe attached to the scots buoy which in turn was connected to the submersible line. When he was unemployed. 3 and that the shore gang was already in place when he arrived to work at Cape May. Testified that he was employed primarily on the navigable waters off Cape May. Oldham testified that Shade was on the water 90% of the time that he worked at the Cape May project. The scots buoy was in place. It was not able to pump the sand to the beach because of a hole in the submersible line. Contended that during poor weather he would work in the harbor which was protected from the rough seas. Great Lakes offered testimony that when the dredge was able to pump sand to the beach. While Oldham was operating the loader. Shade testified that even though doctors were able to reattach his thumb. Great Lakes filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Shade was not a seaman. P. 50 for a judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the evidence did not establish that Shade was a seaman at the time of his injury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/97-5347a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Michael P. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the district court. We affirm the district court's order granting sum mary judgment for the Bank because Brown has failed to allege any legally cognizable adverse employment action and because her attempts to discredit the Bank's account of its employment decisions as a web of pretextual artifice is thor oughly unconvincing. I Brown </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5347a.html">BROWN REGINA C V. BRODY KENNETH D<BR></A><BR> With him </P> <P>on the briefs was Michael P. With him on the brief were Wilma A. </P> <P>Lewis. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order </P> <P>of the district court. We affirm the district court's order granting sum </P> <P>mary judgment for the Bank because Brown has failed to </P> <P>allege any legally cognizable adverse employment action and </P> <P>because her attempts to discredit the Bank's account of its </P> <P>employment decisions as a web of pretextual artifice is thor </P> <P>oughly unconvincing.</P> <P> I</P> <P> Brown </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/952605P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They appeal the District Court's1 ruling that there was no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0334p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C13F9B7B3122D82888256CD1005BCA84/$file/0036097.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Granted defendants' motion for summary judgment after finding that most of the alleged retaliatory acts were not adverse employment actions because they did not constitute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1591.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were based on Mr. Flannery's claim that he was fired after twenty two years of employment with RIAA because of his age. Were based on Mr. The district court held the discriminatory discharge claims (Counts I and III) were time barred. The retaliation claims (Counts II and IV) were not actionable because retaliation connected to an independent contractor relationship does not have the requisite nexus to an employment relationship. Because we are in respectful disagreement with the determinations of the district court. Flannery was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat. He was diagnosed with sleep apnea. His supervisors told him that he would have to leave his employment because his health was bad and he was getting older. He was told he would be terminated effective October 1. He had worked for RIAA for twenty two 4 No. 03 1591 years and was sixty three years old. He was never contacted regarding the consulting work promised in the June 14. The district court determined that the discriminatory discharge claims (Counts I and III) were time barred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4045.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which we will develop more fully in our analysis. WARN is a remedial statute that generally provides protections to workers. To enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to successfully compete in the job market. 20 C.F.R. 639.1(a).(3) WARN directs that an employer can be liable for up to sixty days' back pay and benefits to certain employees who lose their jobs as part of a plant closing or mass layoff(4) without receiving sixty days' advanced notice. See 29 U.S.C. 2104(a)(1).(5) An employer may be excused from the sixty day notice requirement where a mass layoff was the result of an unforseen business circumstance. An employer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/96-7089b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kestell was on the briefs. Hamilton were on the briefs. Was on the briefs. Thereafter was unable to perform his prior job as an orderly at Washington Hospital Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-6004.html">RIGGIN V. OFFICE OF SENATE FAIR EMPL.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1392p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiff's claims for retaliatory discharge following her reports of sexual harassment were dismissed on summary judgment. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that there was a causal link between plaintiff's complaint of sexual harassment and her termination. We also conclude that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that plaintiff was discharged as a result of speech protected by the First Amendment. We recognize that most complaints of sexual harassment are likely to have as their primary purpose the vindication of the private rights of the person offended. Are inherently of public concern even if made in a private forum. Unless the employee's interests in speaking out upon matters of public concern are outweighed by the public employer's interests in running an efficient workplace. The speech is protected under the First Amendment. All of the individuals listed below are employees of the County of Allegheny. When she was discharged from her position as marketing coordinator in the Allegheny County Department of Development. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001440.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. TradeSource is engaged in the business of providing temporary workers to general contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry. Because the bargaining unit dealt with construction employees who were subject to sporadic employment. Employees who were (1) employed by TradeSource for 30 working days or more within the 12 months preceding the eligibility date for the election or (2) had some employment with TradeSource during the 12month period. Were eligible to vote. Three were cast for the Union. Four were cast against the Union. Five were challenged by TradeSource on the ground that they were cast by voluntary union organizers who had sought and obtained employment with TradeSource for the sole purpose of gaining voter eligibility and organizing the company for the Union. They were temporary employees who did not share a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3991_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case examines whether a Title VII plaintiff who is wrongly terminated should be foreclosed from pursuing her claims where her employer eventually reinstates her with back pay. Primarily because the district court erroneously found that Phelan was not subject to an adverse employment action. The boiler room is part of Cook County's Buildings and Grounds Department. She was the target of sexually offensive comments and solicitations. Kelly Freeman was responsible for investigating complaints of sexual harassment. Phelan did not immedi No. 04 3991 3 ately do so because Callaghan told her that she should not have further contact with Kelly Freeman. Which she said was the result of a July 9. Phelan was notified by the Cook County Hospital police that she needed to file a report with the Chicago Police Department to further the prosecution of her case. The two hospital employees who assaulted Phelan were suspended without pay while the matter was investigated. Phelan was directed not to report back to work until a suitable resolution was determined and she was notified that she would be paid while the hospital sought to resolve the situation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1323.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1993 [SYSTEMS NOTE: This appendix is only available through the Clerk's Office in Boston.]. Were on brief for appellants. The immunity attaches when the Attorney General files with the court a certificate stating that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose. 28 U.S.C. 2679(d)(1) (emphasis added). Can the Attorney General certify that there simply was no such event? The legal question is important. The answer will affect the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-10579.ma2.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (7/9/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR> Is vacated. A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> was on brief. The plaintiff learned that the defendant was expanding its sales force. The acknowledgment form provided:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-10579.ma2.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (7/9/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR> Is vacated. A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972609.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One of the prerequisites for obtaining a concealed handgun permit under the North Carolina Concealed Handgun Statute is completion of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-13836.man.html">ALLIANCE METALS, INC., OF ATLANTA V. HINELY INDUS. (8/15/2000, NO. 99-13836)<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not err in concluding Hinely was obligated to comply with the non competition provision of his employment contract or in finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hinely had infringed Alliance Atlanta's right to the trade name Hinely Aluminum. Among the assets acquired were the Hinely Aluminum. Alliance Atlanta and Hinely also entered into a five year employment contract under which Hinely was to serve as Alliance Atlanta's president. Hinely was to receive an annual salary of $138. He was to receive a percentage of Alliance Atlanta's net sales and net profits as incentive compensation. Hinely was entitled to review any information on which the calculation of his incentive compensation was based. Or any other matter described herein ... shall be promptly referred to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/01-16638.opn.html">WEEKS V. HARDEN MFG. CORP. (5/22/2002, NO. 01-16638)<BR></A><BR> The court is asked to determine whether an employee's refusal to agree to a compulsory arbitration provision regarding employment discrimination claims constitutes protected activity for the purposes of alleging a prima facie case of retaliation. Harden argued that the plaintiffs did not engage in statutorily protected conduct because they could not have reasonably believed that the mandatory arbitration provision was an unlawful employment practice. The district court found that although the arbitration provision may have been lawful. Believed that the arbitration provision was unenforceable. The court therefore held that plaintiffs' refusal to sign the arbitration policy was protected activity and the discharge of the plaintiffs constituted actionable retaliation. In finding that the plaintiffs had a reasonable belief that arbitration provisions were unenforceable. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs had a reasonable belief that Harden engaged in an unlawful employment practice by requiring the plaintiffs to sign the agreement to arbitrate.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/525C68CB19D94ECB88256E2900711056/$file/0255164.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roe was unmasked when one of his supervisors discovered the videos online and recognized Roe's picture. Non work related activities were protected by the First Amendment and could not be grounds for terminating his employment. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 Roe was employed as a City of San Diego police officer for more than seven years. He was fired after the San Diego Roe is proceeding under a pseudonym pursuant to a district court order granting him permission to do so. 2 Because this case comes before the court on appeal from a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). CITY OF SAN DIEGO Police Department discovered that he was selling sexually explicit. The uniform was offered for sale by a person with the eBay username </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-13836.man.html">ALLIANCE METALS, INC., OF ATLANTA V. HINELY INDUS. (8/15/2000, NO. 99-13836)<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not err in concluding Hinely was obligated to comply with the non competition provision of his employment contract or in finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hinely had infringed Alliance Atlanta's right to the trade name Hinely Aluminum. Among the assets acquired were the Hinely Aluminum. Alliance Atlanta and Hinely also entered into a five year employment contract under which Hinely was to serve as Alliance Atlanta's president. Hinely was to receive an annual salary of $138. He was to receive a percentage of Alliance Atlanta's net sales and net profits as incentive compensation. Hinely was entitled to review any information on which the calculation of his incentive compensation was based. Or any other matter described herein ... shall be promptly referred to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002032.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In both years the notice informed the Unions that [t]his layoff is presently expected to be temporary. Because the length of the layoff is dependent on many GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INT'L UNION v. The remaining employees were recalled later in each year. It informed employees that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7080a.html">ORANGE VINCENT B. V. DC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/981327.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S 1985 and state law.1 Hankins's primary allegations are that the City denied him a promotion to become the Director of its AIDS Activities Coordinating Office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1850p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Virginia administrative center was the plaintiffs' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0219p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Matovskis are natives and citizens of Macedonia. The B 2 visitor status applies to aliens who have a residence in a foreign country that they have no intention of abandoning and who are temporarily visiting the United States for pleasure. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(B). After the Department of Labor earlier found there were insufficient qualified United States workers to perform the Nikolic work and the INS found Matovski was qualified for the position. Petitioners renewed their adjustment of status applications and argued that they were previously authorized to remain in the United States while pursuing their adjustment of status applications. The Immigration Judge found Petitioners inadmissible for failing to establish that immigrant visas were immediately available to them. The Immigration Judge found: (1) Petitioners were inadmissible because they willfully misrepresented a material fact to obtain an immigration benefit by filing two extension of status applications containing false information. (2) Petitioners were ineligible for adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116638.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court is asked to determine whether an employee's refusal to agree to a compulsory arbitration provision regarding employment discrimination claims constitutes protected activity for the purposes of alleging a prima facie case of retaliation. Harden Manufacturing Corporation and I each understand that we have a right or opportunity to litigate disputes through a court. Each of the parties to this employment arbitration policy voluntarily and knowingly waive any right they have to a jury trial either pursuant to arbitration under this clause or pursuant to a court action by Harden Manufacturing Corporation. All actions based upon any form of discrimination (cumulatively referred to herein as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/01-16638.opn.html">WEEKS V. HARDEN MFG. CORP. (5/22/2002, NO. 01-16638)<BR></A><BR> The court is asked to determine whether an employee's refusal to agree to a compulsory arbitration provision regarding employment discrimination claims constitutes protected activity for the purposes of alleging a prima facie case of retaliation. Harden argued that the plaintiffs did not engage in statutorily protected conduct because they could not have reasonably believed that the mandatory arbitration provision was an unlawful employment practice. The district court found that although the arbitration provision may have been lawful. Believed that the arbitration provision was unenforceable. The court therefore held that plaintiffs' refusal to sign the arbitration policy was protected activity and the discharge of the plaintiffs constituted actionable retaliation. In finding that the plaintiffs had a reasonable belief that arbitration provisions were unenforceable. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs had a reasonable belief that Harden engaged in an unlawful employment practice by requiring the plaintiffs to sign the agreement to arbitrate.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-8533.opa.html">GONZALES V. GARNER FOOD SERVS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gonzales v. This motion was denied. BACKGROUND<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/245E03A7497ACEB18825731E00477657/$file/0535508.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was born in 1946. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9FC27E3948AED01988256E290070C525/$file/0215872.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At page 1183. Bonnette and TorresLopez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-8533.opa.html">GONZALES V. GARNER FOOD SERVS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gonzales v. This motion was denied. BACKGROUND<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/051393P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows.2 Baucom. Is an assistant manager at a convenience store owned by Holiday. The district manager allegedly told the store manager Baucom's age and health were a hindrance. Baucom alleges his hours again were reduced throughout 2003 to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-9010.htm">96-9010 -- SCHELBLE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 11/26/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2997_037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In this opinion we shall employ the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0667n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Facility is a maximum security youth detention prison housing inmates ranging in age from 13 to 16 years. COs are required to work at various posts. It further provides that GEO </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063119P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clegg was working in the Tucker maximum security unit as a Substance Abuse Treatment Program (SATP) coordinator. Clegg was classified as a Grade 20 employee. Clegg was activated for military duty in Iraq as part of her service in the Army National Guard. The first was that state certification requirements had changed while she was on leave and that in order to remain qualified for her job and to continue to be employed by the ADOC. Clegg that they were considering assigning her to the Therapeutic Community (TC) counseling unit at Tucker. Clegg was notified by ADOC on August 27. Clegg in the SATP unit upon her return were Cedric Albritton. Clegg's duties when she was on military leave. Clegg's immediate supervisor was Kerry Bakken. She alleged that during that time she was subjected to retaliation by being denied items she required for work and that she was discriminated against because she was not given her same position or rate of pay upon her return. A second EEOC complaint was filed by Ms. In which she alleged various types of retaliatory behavior were directed toward her after she filed the first EEOC complaint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/991590.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The primary issue is whether US W ATS improperly denied Mark Scully the right to exer cise his stock option following his wrongful ter mination. (3) Parker and Brown were individually liable under theories of conspiracy or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1156.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant had denied her request based on a provision of the FMLA which excludes from FMLA eligibility any employee who is employed at a particular </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2054.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Town Counsel for the Town of Wellesley were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36E30382FA43D72488256D65007EC833/$file/0035457.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allege that they were subject to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is not the employer of Washington's Law Against Discrimination tracks federal law. Thus our analysis will cite only federal law. PMA is a non profit association of the stevedoring and shipping companies that do employ the Plaintiffs. Holding that PMA could not be liable for discrimination because PMA was not the Plaintiffs' employer. I A The Plaintiffs are all African American. They allege that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment while employed on the waterfront in Seattle and Tacoma. The Plaintiffs allege that they have been referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-3254.htm">97-3254 -- BUCKLEY V. KEEBLER CO. -- 05/29/1998<BR></A><BR> Appellant's request for oral argument is denied. The case is ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Ted Buckley brought this action against defendant Keebler Company. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1984.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-10579.man.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2/21/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR> A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1549.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct95/94-1137.html">RANDLE V. CITY OF AURORA<BR></A><BR> This is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendant Appellee City of Aurora ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/68E05CAB4661E0CD88256E0F005CDFED/$file/0056803.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. This evidence is insufficient to make out a prima facie case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA4NjgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0868-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part. The charges were ultimately dismissed and the EEOC issued Leibowitz a right to sue letter. Background The description that follows is drawn from Leibowitz's complaint. Leibowitz was hired by Cornell University and the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D313799BB6F1D3E88256DD70060F3B1/$file/0056803.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Francisco Vasquez is a Deputy Probation Officer. DKC is a detention facility for youth who have committed less serious crimes. The DPOs are assigned to a particular cottage or to the field. Vasquez was assigned to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30F069FE0BC1EB8C882572DB0056BB91/$file/0456039.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that it is unconscio 5606 DAVIS v. The merits of the underlying claims in her complaint are not at issue here. Because the arbitration agreement is unconscionable under California law. A cover memorandum stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-10579.man.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2/21/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR> A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1457p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal offers the en banc court the opportunity to attempt to clarify the quantum and nature of evidence that will permit a jury to find that an employer engaged in impermissible employment discrimination. Who had been an employee of the Hotel du Pont since 1979 and was at the time her employment ceased one of the Head Captains of the hotel's Green Room. That she was not qualified for the position of Manager of Restaurants and that she had not applied for the position. Were pretexts for discrimination. The court concluded that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0261p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of which Wright was aware. Three people were working at the time. Wright reported that Bradley was responsible for this breach of security. Muntz proceeded to transfer her and told her not to have contact with anyone at Nike. Muntz investigated and concluded that these allegations were true. Bradley told him that she was not responsible for the security breach and that Wright had harassed her and other women employees. Bradley's allegations led Muntz to doubt Wright's conclusion that Bradley was responsible for the security breach and Muntz's decision to transfer Bradley. Explained that she feared she would lose her job if she refused to have sex with him. Muntz and Beach told Wright that Nike was dissatisfied with his performance and that he had been investigated for sexual harassment No. 05 5301 Wright v. Explaining that this decision was based on (1) the sexual harassment allegations made against him. We will affirm a grant of summary judgment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-1411.htm">01-1411 -- MCRANN V. UNITED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC. -- 03/18/2003<BR></A><BR> A 2000 is located in Amsterdam. United was to pay the consideration in two separate payments. Summary judgment is proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0452n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roberts is a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist who worked in the operating room of a Department of Veterans Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/96-5049.wpd.html">BLACK V. BAKER OIL TOOLS, INC.<BR></A><BR> Because we agree with the district court that no contract was ever created between Black and Baker Oil. Black was issued a copy of Baker Oil's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-1077.htm">01-1077 -- U.S. V. CONSUMER INSURANCE GROUP -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Modrejewski told Holmes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D82753A69B33EB1A8825725100007FB5/$file/0435655.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/012505P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was in Cubic's employ for three months prior to becoming associated with Sprint PCS. Gagnon was directly supervised by Kathleen Wilder. Gagnon was promoted in October 1997 to CBT Manager. Wilder was out of the office on maternity leave and Jim Keenan. Vice President Jim Mendenhall was instrumental in promoting Gagnon to the manager position. We also note that there are two pending motions taken with the case. Appellant's Motion for Judicial Reassignment is denied. Appellant's Motion for Waiver of Costs is granted pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h). 2 1 Because Gagnon's position was new at Sprint PCS. It did not have a dollar figure assigned for compensation. The MRP is not a guaranteed salary point. When a salary increase greater than ten percent is sought. A Compensation Exception Request form stating the amount of the raise requested is completed. Mendenhall's rejection of the initial compensation request is an important part of Gagnon's claim of discrimination. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315884.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the cruise ship was in the Port of Miami. Six of the crewmembers represented in this action were killed and four were injured.1 Each crewmember's employment agreement with Defendant NCL includes an arbitration clause. Plaintiffs' appeal presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit: whether the crewmembers' employment agreements were shielded from arbitration by the seamen employment contract exemption contained in section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The injured crewmembers are plaintiffappellants in this case along with personal representatives of the decedents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972492.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Some of the video footage was used by ABC in a PrimeTime Live broadcast that was sharply critical of Food Lion. 402 was entered on the various claims. I. In early 1992 producers of ABC's PrimeTime Live program received a report alleging that Food Lion stores were engaging in unsanitary meat handling practices. The allegations were that Food Lion employees ground out of date beef together with new beef. ABC reporters Lynne Dale (Lynne Litt at the time) and Susan Barnett concluded that they would have a better 5 chance of investigating the allegations if they could become Food Lion employees. Some of the videotape was eventually used in a November 5. The truth of the PrimeTime Live broadcast was not an issue in the litigation we now describe. Food Lion sought to recover (1) administrative costs and wages paid in connection with the employment of Dale and Barnett and (2) broadcast (publication) damages for matters such as loss of good will. Punitive damages were also requested by Food Lion. Diminished stock value or anything of that nature </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024650.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Sylvia Anita Ryan Webster was convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2002 of conspiracy to defraud the United States and four counts of immigration fraud. Ryan Webster was the sole practitioner in a District of Columbia law practice called Ryan & Webster. Her work primarily involved the representation of aliens seeking permanent legal status in the United States through the process for issuance of Permanent Resident Cards (commonly called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1530.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Labinger</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3316.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinson was hired as a judicial secretary to Judge Warren Sappington. Was later reclassified as a judicial clerk. As well as attending court with the judge to whom she was assigned. Was named as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/03-1083a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/005225.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was hired as of January 29. Cardenas asserts that through 1989 every manager or supervisor in the ISD was a white non Hispanic male. Cardenas was appointed at the G 30 level. The claims raised in Cardenas' 128 paragraph complaint revolve around his contention that he was hired at a lower grade level than merited by the work he was assigned. Was not promoted as merited. Was the subject of retaliation. Was subject to a hostile work environment. Our review of the grant of summary judgment is plenary. 129 (3d Cir. 1991). 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides for summary judgment when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1450.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Simas was a vice president under Silva's supervision. Was about to default on an undersecured commercial loan with an outstanding balance approximating $831. Even though Xifiras was serving on the Citizens board of directors at the time and intended to use the proceeds to acquire commercial real estate. Was inflated. Were rumored to be involved in an extramarital affair. Silva sent Simas a memorandum advising that his repeated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/01-1072a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Honig were on brief. Were on brief. Gottfried was on brief. Appended to the petition to deny were declarations by one former part time employee. By two other former employees and two unsuccessful job applicants who claimed to have been subjected to discriminatory treatment.1 In the petition. The University responded that it did not believe disclosure of Sullivan's complaint was required because her discrimination suit resulted in a verdict in the University's favor. In May 1997 the FCC sent the University a letter asking the University to explain why it had failed to disclose the Sullivan Also appended was the declaration of Sullivan's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-1017.htm">03-1017 -- STOVER V. MARTINEZ -- 08/30/2004<BR></A><BR> Jurisdiction in this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1310_041A.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Yorli Huff brought this action for damages for race and sex discrimination that she claimed to have suffered during her employment with the Sheriff's Department of Cook County. Huff was employed by the Cook County Sheriff's Department and was assigned to the Metropolitan Enforcement Group ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411888.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted qualified immunity after determining that the law regarding constructive discharge and protected speech was not clearly established. We think that it was. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are former employees of the purchasing department of Fulton County. Debra Blount and Natalie Revell were employed as contracting officers. Defendant Gates is the department's director and ultimate supervisor of all three Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims against Defendant Vanessa Reynolds and Fulton County. Plaintiffs and some of their coworkers requested and were granted a meeting with Fulton County Commissioner Emma Darnell for the afternoon of August 27. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53333A1C2A376D138825723B005F9EE5/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was denied entry. The Kamehameha Schools were created through a charitable testamentary trust. Plaintiff argues that he was denied admission because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Factual Background Historical Context2 The islands of Hawaii are geographically isolated in the South Pacific Ocean and were originally settled sometime between 1 and 750 A.D. The immediate result of that first encounter was that Native Hawaiians were introduced to Western goods and Western diseases. The first treaty was signed in 1826. Additional treaties were signed in 1849. Was commercially desirable. Western economic domination of the Hawaiian Islands was followed by an interest in establishing political control. Was overthrown by a small group of nonHawaiians. Who were assisted in their efforts by the United States Minister. Laws were then enacted suppressing the Hawaiian culture and language and allowing for the displacement of Native Hawaiians from their lands. The Hawaiian language was banned as a medium of instruction in schools. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/95-2898.man.html">WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)<BR></A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Such tests are not an issue in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2054.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. As an administrative expense to an executive who was terminated after rendering postpetition services. To join Filene's at a time when it was already experiencing financial difficulty.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/95-2898.man.html">WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)<BR></A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Such tests are not an issue in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-8076.htm">98-8076 -- DOUGLAS V. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO. INC. -- 05/23/2000<BR></A><BR> The parties signed an Asset Purchase Agreement with a Form of Employment Agreement attached. <p> The transaction was closed on December 9. Notwithstanding whether the specific changes are reflected in a revised written agreement. All of those offers were withdrawn because the positions were not actually available. Orkin asserts that he would have earned at least $2. Douglas claims it was the lowest paying position available in the Rock Springs area. Douglas turned down the offer and his employment was terminated. <p> Douglas and his wife brought suit in Wyoming state court against Orkin. Summary judgment is appropriate if. There is no genuine issue of material fact. The movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <u>See</u> <u>UMLIC Nine Corp. v. The district court's interpretation of state law is subject to de novo review. <u>See</u> <u>Salve Regina College v. If the language of the employment contract is plain and unequivocal. That language is controlling. <u>See</u> <u>Lyman v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C382D0C30B8A79A88256C09005930CE/$file/9915645.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That sex was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2220.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is undisputed that the human resources official who made the decision to terminate Mr. Did not even know that he was black. Because we find that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether BCI's proffered explanation for the termination is a pretext for racial discrimination. More than 60% of the 200 employees at the Albuquerque facility were Hispanic. While fewer than 2% were black. Merchandisers are hourly employees responsible for placement of <hr> Coca Cola products in retail outlets such as grocery stores. Merchandisers' schedules are staggered and they must occasionally work overtime to cover shifts. He was generally regarded as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ABD6A99B4FC2C05C88256DF00000F5D7/$file/0235399.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is: what showing of pretext must a plaintiff in a retaliation suit make in order to overcome a defendant's motion for summary judgment. She was unable to demonstrate that Marathon's nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her were a pretext for retaliation. Stegall alleges that she was fired from KORD. Facts Lynda Stegall was employed by Citadel Broadcasting Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C615790509C87F488256FA500055365/$file/0235805o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL ACKLES. Judges Trott and Gould have voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. Is DENIED. I write to emphasize that the rule announced in Bollard and applied in this case is consistent with the constitutional underpinnings of the ministerial exception. That every court that has addressed a minister's ability to recover damages for sexual harassment has reached the same conclusion we have. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0251p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cochran's insurance agency was located in Nashville and. Weary was paid solely upon a commission basis. As he was permitted to do. Weary was over forty years of age. Asserting that he was impermissibly terminated because of his age. The sole issue in this appeal is whether Weary was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E5127BFB9AC6CBC288256E1200826E11/$file/0235399.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2003 is modified to read as follows: Although Marathon objects to Peterson's deposition testimony on the grounds that it is inadmissible hearsay. As follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-3255.html">THOMSEN, JEFFREY V. DEPT. OF TREASURY<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was Michael T. With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Liza Murphy. Army Reserves was a benefit of Mr. Jeffrey Thomsen was hired as an Officer in the Uniformed Division of the United States Secret Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001041.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Under Title VII for refusing to allow her to wear a head scarf at work that was mandated by her religion. Cooper told Ali that she would have to stop wearing the head scarf or be transferred to a position in ALI v. Claiming that Alamo's refusal to allow her to wear a head scarf was employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. Ali claims that Alamo's refusal to allow her to wear a head scarf was in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 2(a). That section provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual. She concedes that her termination was lawful and unrelated to the events that form the basis for this suit. 1 4 ALI v. The adverse employment action requirement is derived from the statute's requirement that the employer's practice relate to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1945p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will review a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Appellant is an orthopedic surgeon who. Which is a private. Which is defined as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTczNzgtY3YgdyBEaXNzZW50LnBkZg==/02-7378-cv%20w%20Dissent.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that the challenged employment practice was unreasonable. Plaintiffs are former employees of defendant Knolls Atomic The complete procedural history of this case in the district court can be found at Meacham. There was sufficient evidence of an equally effective alternative to the subjective components of the IRIF to support liability. 71 76. Which issued while defendants' petition for 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a writ of certiorari was pending. We have considered City of Jackson and the parties' supplemental briefing. I. The Lab is funded by the United States Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Program ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2211.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was hired and entered into an apprentice indenture agreement2 which required that she complete a total of 7. Hottenroth was compensated and her tuition expenses were paid by Slinger. Slinger also agreed to provide Hottenroth with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1703p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Administrative Law Judge to whom the case was assigned granted DuPont Merck's motion for summary decision. Getahun was not authorized to accept employment in the United States and thus lacked standing to assert a claim under S 1324b. We will reverse the order of the ALJ dismissing Dr. She attested on the Form I 9 that she was an alien authorized by the INS to work in the United States but did not complete the blank space calling for the expiration date of her employment authorization. Getahun's application for political asylum was granted. Employment authorization was automatically granted or continued for persons granted asylum: When an alien's application for asylum is granted. He is granted asylum status for an indefinite period. Employment authorization is automatically granted or continued for persons granted asylum or withholding of deportation unless the alien is detained pending removal to a third country. Instituted an internal audit of the Form I 9 of each employee to ensure that it was in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTIzMDMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2303-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That it is the obligation of his pension fund. We remand for a determination of whether Wilkins was prejudiced by this omission. If he was. For a determination of the amount of benefits he is due. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A. Which is administered by the Mason Tenders District Council ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-10699.man.html">HIPP V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (5/29/2001, NO. 99-10699)<BR></A><BR> We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 300<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012200.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because North Carolina's employment at will doctrine bars Jenkins's breach of contract claim. Jenkins was employed by Akzo continuously from 1969 until his departure in 1997. Jenkins was asked to accept a position as Director of Sales and Marketing for Akzo's start up operation in the Far East. Which was to be headquartered in Singapore. On the condition that he would have a job when he returned to the United States. This commitment was memorialized in a document entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/94D5D6521A8F2F5188256DA2005AA509/$file/0215872.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must decide whether and in what circumstances contracted service workers should be considered in determining whether an employer is exempt from the requirements of the Family Medical Leave Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-10699.man.html">HIPP V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (5/29/2001, NO. 99-10699)<BR></A><BR> We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 300<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044628p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Roth assumed senior status. This case was argued before the panel of Judges Fuentes. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (Filed: June 7. Was fired after she signed her name to a pro choice advertisement in the local newspaper. Curay Cramer asserts both that signing the advertisement was conduct protected by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a) and that she was fired for conduct less egregious under Catholic doctrine than conduct of male employees who were treated less harshly. We will affirm but. I. Factual Background Ursuline Academy is a private. That right is under 3 attack. We urge all Delawareans and elected officials at every level to be vigilant in the fight to ensure that women now and in the future have the right to choose. Following the text were the names of the individuals endorsing it. Curay Cramer was called into the office of Barbara C. Griffin informed Curay Cramer that the school was deeply troubled by her public support of a position inimical to accepted Catholic doctrine and that Griffin was considering terminating Curay Cramer's employment with the school. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/024429p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was injured on August 7. At issue in this appeal is whether Marino. Who was working with riggers on a task associated with the construction project at the time of his injury. Because our jurisdiction is based on the diversity of citizenship of the parties. As Marino is a citizen of New York. ICR is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in Mahwah. The amount in our task is to predict how the courts of New Jersey would resolve this issue if presented with these facts. As the courts of New Jersey have spoken on this general issue several times. We have recently addressed this issue applying New Jersey law. Marino was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0032p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Morris claims that she was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliatory harassment by her supervisor. Defendant appellee Brent Likins was appointed the new County Road Engineer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312230.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nor that damages were incidental to equitable and declaratory relief or that common questions of law or fact predominated. We are persuaded by none of the plaintiffs' arguments The plaintiffs/appellants are Cornelius Cooper. I. The complex facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are these. Who are The plaintiffs subsequently amended their Complaint in August. Throughout this opinion references to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910699.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 3002 days before the representative plaintiff's charge is filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). We conclude the proper forward cutoff date is the date of filing of the representative charge. We will use the terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1683p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge In recognition of the fact that discrimination against the physically and mentally disabled was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910699.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. We will use the terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993877.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to address the applicability of the ADEA when an employer offers its Medicare eligible retirees health insurance coverage allegedly inferior to the coverage offered to retired employees not eligible for Medicare. Accordingly will reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. Would remain eligible only if they fell into one of four groups: employees unable to continue their employment due to a disability and who otherwise were eligible for a disability retirement pension. The plaintiff class in this action is composed of retirees who are aged 65 or older and thus eligible for Medicare who remain eligible for retiree health coverage under these restrictions. Pressure to reduce costs was enhanced when Highmark announced that it would increase the County's premiums for medical insurance coverage by an average of 48%. The district court described SecurityBlue as follows: SecurityBlue is a coordinated health care plan provided through Keystone Health Plan West. SecurityBlue is available to persons who have Medicare Part B Medical Insurance and who live in the SecurityBlue `service area' [which includes most of western Pennsylvania]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316248.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that the agreements were unenforceable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0154p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The public policy claim was sent to the jury. Defendants then renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law on the public policy claim and the District Court granted the renewed motion finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish at trial that he was an at will employee. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gary Kusens was employed by Defendant Pascal Company. When his position was eliminated. Plaintiff was 54 years old. His base salary increased and his commissions were determined as a fixed percentage of nationwide Pascal sales. Two of the people responsible for the elimination of Plaintiff's position were Defendant Benjamin Paschall. Pascal's Vice President of Sales and Marketing who was also Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Plaintiff was the oldest of the four Regional Sales Managers at Pascal. Who was terminated the same day as Plaintiff. Was the second oldest. The youngest two Sales Managers were retained. Plaintiff filed suit contending that he was fired because of his age and not because of Pascal's financial strategy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/952660P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The controlling substantive law is that of Minnesota. After she was terminated from her position as director of sales at the Mall of America Days Inn in Bloomington. Found that Fox was entitled to prevail on her promissory estoppel claim. Claiming that the District Court erred in denying its motion for We agree with T H and now reverse. that Fox failed to make a submissible case on her promissory estoppel claim and therefore that T H's motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted. She was promoted several times and. Was general manager of a hotel In February 1992. After Tollman Hundley sold the hotel where Fox was employed. She was told that her job soon would be During the next two weeks. Fox was involved in tying up loose Wilson asked Fox to join T H as Under the ends in the hotel transfer when she was contacted by Tom Wilson. Because the position was only temporary. Fox was told that permanent employment was conditioned on her satisfactory performance in the temporary position and a successful interview with the new general manager who had not yet been hired. 15. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-6001.html">SCHMELZER V. OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952898.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. The plaintiffs' original complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). I. This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The district court's task was to examine the evidence the plaintiff adduced at trial and determine whether the plaintiff had presented credible evidence in support of the four elements of a prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): 1) she is a member of a protected class under Title VII. 2) she was qualified for the employment position in question. 3) she applied for the employment position in question and was rejected. 4) the employment position remained open or was filled by a person outside the protected class to which the plaintiff belongs. We are equally suited to undertake the same task on appeal. Can determine whether the evidence supporting the prima facie case is credible. The full name of the organization was Increase Minority Participation by Affirmative Change Today of Northwest Florida. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6090.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) whether an employee's continued employment acts to accept an employer's unilateral changes to an at will employment contract under Oklahoma law. (3) whether First Cash's arbitration agreement is unenforceable under Oklahoma law. Her continued employment was not intended to serve as her assent. There was no further communication between Hardin and First Cash. It read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/041505P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question presented is whether Minnesota's public policy against discrimination in employment on the basis of age. Both were over the age of 50. The MHRA states that the prohibition against unfair employment practices based on age </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952898.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. Finding that none of the plaintiffs had carried The plaintiffs' original complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). The district court's task was to examine the evidence the plaintiff adduced at trial and determine whether the plaintiff had presented credible evidence in support of the four elements of a prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): 1) she is a member of a protected class under Title VII. 2) she was qualified for the employment position in question. 3) she applied for the employment position in question and was rejected. 4) the employment position remained open or was filled by a person outside the protected class to which the plaintiff belongs. We are equally suited to undertake the same task on appeal. Can determine whether the evidence supporting the prima facie case is credible. 2 2 This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiffs filed an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0068n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that Plaintiff Employees' state law claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. And/or (3) Plaintiff Employees' claims were not ripe for adjudication. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE The Plaintiff Employees in this case are fourteen Enquirer composing room employees. The Cincinnati Typographical Union No. 3 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051356p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm in part. Was appointed Borough Manager of Kutztown in early 1991. ¶¶4. Hill was responsible for the administration of all departments within the Borough. ¶¶1011. The Mayor intensified his attacks on Hill as retaliation for this reporting (and for positions Hill took that were contrary to the Mayor's positions). Hill's employment was the responsibility of the Borough Council. The things Marino was saying. Marino has hurt the borough is in the manner in which he has conducted himself in the bars. He has made many statements in those places of how he is going to get rid of certain council members and plans to have this or that borough employee replaced . . . His statements concerning these individuals are hurting the borough because they . . . are based on false opinions . . . [T]hose statements are hurting the good reputation of our hard working employees. ¶23. Purportedly because of his involvement in certain appointments by [the] Council which the Mayor described as a `plot' that was corrupt and criminal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0032p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200305/02-5120a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-5196.wpd.html">SEYMORE V. SHAWVER & SONS, INC.<BR></A><BR> Seymore was certainly aware of her termination... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0114n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue before the Court is whether an employee ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN effectively waived the statutory limitations period for a civil lawsuit by signing an employment application that provided for an abbreviated period of limitations. The Thurmans contend that the district court erred in holding that their claims were time barred by the abbreviated statute of limitations contained in the DaimlerChrysler employment application. Thurman is an employee of DaimlerChrysler and a former co worker of Pittman. The clause stated: (8) I agree that any claim or lawsuit relating to my service with Chrysler Corporation or any of its subsidiaries must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. This clause was printed in the same size font as all other printed portions of the application. The clause was preceded by the statement. The application also contained a clause stating: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4163.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dick was not discriminated against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0243p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> File Name: 99a0243p.06 court held that there was no material adverse employment action. The opinion does not indicate whether the delay was serious. The only adverse effect claimed by the plaintiff was anxiety. See id. at 12 (remedial action that is insufficiently prompt can constitute an independent. I am not concerned that permitting Dobbs Weinstein to go forward with her action will encourage premature litigation concerning adverse initial employment decisions. The employee generally will not suffer a materially adverse action. This is particularly true if the employer refrains from terminating the employee in the interim. Even if the employee is wrongfully terminated. Voluntary reinstatement and provision of back pay will limit or possibly even obviate the recovery of compensatory damages. The filing of this lawsuit may have been a factor in bringing closure to a lengthy internal review process. The litigation is necessary and should not be discouraged. That recommendation was then forwarded to the acting dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042363p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. Fasold was thirty three 1 years old in 1986 when he began In its memorandum opinion. The District Court erroneously stated that Fasold was born September 24. When he was in 2 1 his work as a detective at the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office.2 During his first two years with the District Attorney's Office he worked in the Major Crimes Unit. In 1988 he went to the Narcotics Unit where his primary duty was the care. He was transferred back to the Major Crimes Unit where he spent the next eight years. His primary responsibility was the investigation of white collar crime. Fasold was told that effective January 2. He was being transferred back to the Narcotics Unit. Fasold was uncomfortable with the proposed move because of his lack of experience in Narcotics (the drug dog aside) and his positive work experiences and evaluations in Major Crimes. Fasold remembered that the detectives in Narcotics were expected to work with informants and to make undercover buys tasks for which Fasold felt ill suited. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/022763p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm in part. TPC is a closely held corporation. It provided that Fields was to have the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/93-3380.opa.html">WALKER V. NATIONSBANK OF FL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Walker v. The branch was given an overall rating of unsatisfactory.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/93-3380.opa.html">WALKER V. NATIONSBANK OF FL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Walker v. The branch was given an overall rating of unsatisfactory.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982816.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. At will employment contract. I. Layton is an engineer. Some of which are overseas. Even if the reason for termination of the Navy contract was disputed. Layton alleged that the July correspondence created an employment contract between the parties according to which he would be employed by MMM so long as his work was satisfactory. This application stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B220D92DB2DF1F4688257352005602C7/$file/0536012.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case presents the question of whether construction workers' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1773.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Willard & Redding was on brief for appellant. Gordon and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellee. Told him at the time he was hired that he would not become wealthy working for the Bank. Would have a job for life unless he committed a criminal act against the Bank. Providing administrative services relating 2Goldman recollects that similar representations were repeated by various supervisors throughout the course of his employment with the Bank. to the Bank's custodial security accounts.3 In 1989. 119 positions were eliminated. Determined that it was necessary to eliminate three of the fifteen positions in the Custody Administration Unit. Keane explained that the twenty four year old was suspected of misusing a corporate credit card. The thirty seven year old and Goldman were considered the 3The Bank is a custodian of securities for various clients. Keane represents that Goldman was responsible for the fewest customer accounts. All three positions were permanently eliminated and Goldman's duties were absorbed by the remaining employees in the Custody Administration Unit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061140p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the right to a jury trial on state law claims brought in federal court is governed by state. Marra and DiGravio had no right to have a jury decide their PHRA claims. Is responsible for developing and operating public housing in the City of Philadelphia. Edward Marra and Albert DiGravio were both employed in supervisory positions in the Inspections Division of PHA's 3 Design and Construction Department.1 DiGravio served as a Rehabilitation Supervisor. Marra's direct supervisor was Georgette Galbreth. Are recounted below. He was responsible for arranging and overseeing the inspection of houses that had been rehabilitated by PHA to ensure compliance with all pertinent housing codes. Among the several housing inspectors who worked under Marra were DiGravio. Formal notices of appointment were sent to both Paladino and Wright but later rescinded after George Fields. Although his salary and job duties were not materially affected by the demotion. Finding that PHA had discriminated against them in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.4 Fields and three other PHA employees (no one of whom is of particular relevance to our case) were also named as defendants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971667A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each alleged she: (1) was delayed in receiving a firearm. (2) was not promoted. (3) was not selected to attend the police academy operated by the Vir Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. 2 ginia Commonwealth University (the Police Academy). (4) was discharged. Because she is a woman.1 Johnson alone alleged a sexual harassment claim. Both oral and written examinations are required. Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to Walter H. Johnson alleges that she was constructively discharged. 3 (Department Supervisor Miller). Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to S. The decision to recommend an individual for promotion to a rank above corporal was made by a panel of individuals from both inside and outside VUU. While the Department's Chief of Police was not a member of this panel. Chief Wells was responsible for the daily operation and administration of the Department. Chief Wells was authorized to select who among the Department's officers could attend the Police Academy.2 Of relevance to this appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0997n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree that Plautz's claims lack merit because none of the alleged discriminatory acts were adverse employment actions and the acts collectively The Honorable Nancy G. He is usually able to control his condition through medication and diet. On Murphy's first day as supervisor he told Plautz: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-2143.htm">98-2143 -- TRUJILLO V. NEW MEXICO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS -- 04/08/1999<BR></A><BR> The New Mexico Department of Corrections.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/994305P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1346. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following summary is based upon the findings of the district court. John and Richard Coleman were married in 1984 and had three children. Continued to have contact with each other for child visitation purposes. They continued to have consensual sex. Told her that she was under arrest. John why she was arrested. John was drunk or dangerous to herself and did not agree with Coleman's decision to arrest her. Coleman was unarmed3 but still wearing his police uniform and his badge. Even though it was customary for officers to leave their badges at the police station when they were off duty. Coleman was standing next to his truck in the parking lot and told her to get into it. Which she refused to do because she was upset that he had arrested and jailed her. Where it was freezing cold. John was visibly shaken and told her that Coleman had thrown her in jail and then raped her. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-1165.htm">98-1165 -- KAFERLY V. U.S. WEST TECHNOLOGIES -- 09/01/1999<BR></A><BR> Because we find that the underlying decision of the Employee Benefits Committee to deny benefits to Kaferly was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The dispute in this case is straightforward. Contends that she is entitled to Term of Employment ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1740p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/982866P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of her employer because there were disputed issues of material fact for a jury to consider on (1) whether she was sexually harassed and (2) whether she was retaliated against for engaging in protected activity. The district court's judgment was entered on July 7. The notice of appeal was timely filed on July 10. Have little to add to the excellent memorandum opinion of the district court. She was a sanitation/pallet washer in the meat preparation department. At her request she was transferred to the packaging department in September 1996. Appellant believed that other employees thought that she was the one who had made the complaint. She asserted from that point she was ostracized and isolated by other employees and first line supervisors. Apparently these comments were made during a meeting discussing the sexual harassment complaints and the company sexual harassment policy. There was yelling and crying at the meeting. In his deposition Schoenfeld testified that he was frustrated by the sexual harassment complaints and the attempts by the company to improve </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0086p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was employed as a Resident Specialist Coordinator (RSC) at NorthWest Community Corrections Center. Early in her employment she learned that she was making less money than a Caucasian male RSC and complained to her boss at a staff meeting. McClain was fired. McClain was fired before the end of her 120 day probationary period. The district court held that McClain was entitled to notice and a hearing prior to her termination under state law but that state law did not create an implied private right of action. (2) her right under Ohio law to due process creates a property interest that is protected by the Federal Constitution. (3) her disparate treatment claims (one for disparate pay and one for termination) should have survived NorthWest's motion for summary judgment. (4) her retaliation claims should have survived NorthWest's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment was warranted in favor of NorthWest as to McClain's state and federal due process claims. Summary judgment was not warranted on McClain's discrimination claims or her retaliation claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311960.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * This is Belinda Hulsey's appeal from a summary judgment entered against her in the Title VII sexual harassment lawsuit she filed against her former employer. We view the evidence the way the district court should have viewed it. That the court should not have thrown out Hulsey's case without a trial. The restaurant was one of nine in Alabama owned and managed by Pride Restaurants. She was 17 years old. Garrison was either 20 or 21. 2 About ten to fourteen days after Hulsey began working. She had Krystal tell Garrison that she was not interested. The night after Krystal told Garrison that Hulsey was not interested in him. The three were closing the restaurant together. Even though the girls' grandmother was waiting for them in the parking lot. That he was [her] boss. Promising that he would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-3150a.htm">00-3150A -- AQUILINO V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS -- 07/23/2001<BR></A><BR> Is granted. A copy of the published opinion is attached. <p> Entered for the Court <p> Patrick Fisher. Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/043679P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that API violated the WARN Act by terminating its employees' employment without guaranteeing that ALLC would hire the employees after the sale was concluded. Closing was scheduled for June 30. ALLC assured API in writing that ALLC would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1740p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts in the case were developed at the trial of the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court. Rhett informed her supervisors and co workers that she was pregnant. Of her pregnancy both asked if she was going to get married. Turndorf commented that being a single parent was difficult. Rhett claimed that Gormisky said that getting married was: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-6001.html">SEAN T. HADDON V. EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE<BR></A><BR> Executive Residence at the White House.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001439.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues before the Court are whether Hooven Lewis has a disability under the Rehabilitation Act or was regarded by her employer as having such a disability. Whether the Merit Systems Protection Board was arbitrary and capricious or abused its discretion in finding that Hooven Lewis' employer did not terminate her for informing upon her superior. The Court holds that Hooven Lewis does not have a disability under the Rehabilitation Act because she does not have a condition that substantially limits her in any major life activity. Hooven Lewis received training as a medical laboratory specialist1 and was ultimately assigned to the Walter Reed Army Hospital Institute of Research ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0760n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tracy is not entitled to permanent long term disability payments. Tracy argues that he has demonstrated that he is unable to be gainfully employed because of his The Honorable John R. Tracy's claim was handled by an insurance company hired by the Plan. While Prudential Insurance Company of America was the original disability case manager. That responsibility was transferred to Aetna Life Insurance Company effective January 1. We AFFIRM the district court's finding that Tracy is not entitled to continued long term disability payments under the terms of the Pharmacia & Upjohn Absence Payment Plan. Plaintiff Joel Tracy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1719.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schwartz LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. We must sort out which of the plaintiff's claims are timely. Are legally cognizable and sufficiently supported. As those claims are timely. The state law claim is time barred and its federal analogue runs afoul of an inexpugnable affirmative defense the employer's swift. Giving the nonmovant the benefit of all reasonable inferences that those facts will bear. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1828.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0184p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> File Name: 00a0184p.06 University's affirmative action procedures and occurred while he was acting in his official position and consisted only of a letter and memos addressed to the president and other members of the Board of Trustees (of which plaintiff was a member as Vice President of Human Relations). I think that the University had a significant interest in regulating the speech to make certain that it was presented in the most informative and helpful manner. I believe that in this situation the plaintiff's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protections. Who is African American. Was employed by the University of Cincinnati ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM5MjctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3927-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to determine the scope of Title VII's anti retaliation clause forbidding an employer from retaliating against an employee who has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/952547A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Ham The opinion in this case was prepared by Circuit Judge Donald S. Judge Russell died prior to the time the decision was filed. Before the case was remanded to the district court. Although Egbuna's work visa expired six months after he was hired. Egbuna was still unauthorized to work in the United States. Section 2000e 3 provides that discrimination by an employer against an employee or applicant for employment who has participated in a Title 1 The record reveals that TLLI's hiring policy was to refuse uniformly to hire prospective alien employees who fail to produce valid identification and proof of authorization for employment. 2 Egbuna's deposition reveals that he never attempted to renew his visa because he feared deportation and did not want to alert the authorities of his illegal immigration status. 3 VII investigation. TLLI could not have employed him because of his undocumented alien status. 3 the district court found that Egbuna could not demonstrate that he was a victim of discrimination. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/985356.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schurr alleged that race was the determining factor in Resorts' decision not to offer him a job which was ultimately filled by an equally well qualified minority candidate. Has been substituted for Smith. 2 Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the Commission's regulations establishing minority employment goals. Schurr also alleged that Resorts' affirmative action plan as drafted and applied was invalid. Because we are convinced that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Schurr's Title VII and other statutory claims. We will reverse that portion of the District Court's Order and remand the matter for further proceedings. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chairman on standing grounds. Minorities and persons with disabilities are recruited and employed at all levels of the operation's work force and treated during employment without regard to their gender. Equal opportunity efforts are to be undertaken in all employment practices including promotion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972038.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 1 2 the language is corrected to read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1516.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Levinson LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Black</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/964107P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellees were awarded front pay and injunctive relief under Title VII. I. Helms and Ey were employees at the Adam's Mark until they were discharged on September 12. 2 1991 performance review said he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-1017.htm">99-1017 -- TOTH V. GATES RUBBER COMPANY -- 06/21/2000<BR></A><BR> <strong>remands</strong> for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. <ol> <li><strong>FACTUAL BACKGROUND </strong></li> </ol> <p> Toth was born in Yugoslavia and emigrated to the United States in 1967. Senior Research Chemist. <p> In October 1995 Toth was transferred to Gates' Materials Analysis Laboratory. These evaluations were prepared by Schneider. In the evaluations Toth was criticized. Toth sought to transfer from the Materials Analysis Laboratory to Gates' Air Springs Department where there was an opening for a Materials Development Engineer. Toth was not hired for this position which was instead awarded to Rich Larmi. A male with a background in chemical engineering. <p> Toth remained in the Materials Analysis Laboratory and was ultimately placed on probation for 90 days and instructed to improve her performance or risk termination. Toth was informed that because she had failed to improve her performance in the areas in which she had been rated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992393.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. This case is before us for the second time. Was off limits. She was a no good nasty bitch. It was continuous daily. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991443.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Senior Circuit Judge: Arnold Whitmore is a fast food executive employed by La Van Hawkins InnerCityFoods. UCF were personally liable for breach of the employment agreement that he signed with ICF. He also alleged that he was entitled to receive the equitable value of the shares that he owned in ICF and UCF. The district court dismissed Hawkins and UCF pursuant to Rule 50 and determined that Whitmore was not entitled to the fair market value of his shares in either company. We agree with the district court that UCF is not liable to Whitmore and that Whitmore is not entitled to receive the value of his equity interest in either ICF or UCF. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY La Van Hawkins is the President and CEO of ICF. The initial paragraph of the employment contract states: This employment agreement is made and entered into .. . by and between La Van Hawkins InnerCityFoods. Although the employment contract states that it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972408.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Footnote 1 the footnote is amended to read as follows: Johnson argues initially that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Is not applicable to this case for two reasons: (1) a valid contract did not exist between herself and Circuit City. 1227 (4th Cir. 1998) (issues raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be considered. The district court held that the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff Demeka Johnson is unenforceable for lack of consideration. Because we hold that the arbitration agreement is supported by adequate consideration. Johnson is a black female and a resident of Beltsville. She was employed as the service manager at a local McDonald's restaurant. Johnson obtained an application for the position and checked the box for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2587.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Police officers and firefighters who were subject to the age restriction filed two suits asserting in relevant part that the reinstated mandatory retirement program amounted to subterfuge to evade the purposes of the ADEA. Although the text of the City's ordinance indicated that the City was reestablishing a mandatory retirement age in furtherance of public safety. The court subsequently certified for interlocutory appeal the question of whether there is any evidence through which a plaintiff might prove that a mandatory retirement program. We conclude that the particular Nos. 02 2587 & 02 2588 3 theory of subterfuge that the plaintiffs pursue in this case is not viable. As it was originally enacted in 1967. See Lake Country (continued...) 4 Nos. 02 2587 & 02 2588 hiring and retirement ages for police officers and firefighters were now vulnerable to challenge. Only if it could be shown that age was a bona fide occupational qualification for these positions would the rules survive scrutiny under the ADEA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3829_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are licensed merchant marine officers. 98 Stat. 2863 (1984) (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (2002)).2 The plaintiffs claim that they were discharged in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected correspondence with the United States Coast Guard ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Alleging that he was retaliated against for exercising his rights under Title VII. The district court (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Tapia's direct supervisors were first Tina Archuleta and later Barbara Romero. Tapia reported to his union that he was subjected to harassment and discrimination. The union representative set forth Tapia's complaints that he was treated unfairly. He was required to adhere to certain policies and job requirements that other employees in similar jobs did not have to adhere to. He was monitored. No formal grievance was ever filed. <hr> From September 14. Stated that she had told Tapia in a November 6 meeting that she could not approve a transfer for three reasons: (1) a transfer was not available because of a hiring freeze. (3) Tapia's reason his dislike of Matson and Archuleta was not a favored basis for a transfer. He was afraid he would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/06-5149b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Molly E. With her on the brief were Peter D. Which provided for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0793n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A public school teacher who was temporarily denied tenure by her school district. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Eugenia Shohadaee was a high school Spanish teacher at the Nashville School The Honorable John Corbett O'Meara. She alleges that she was sexually harassed by the high school principal and was denied tenure in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. Plaintiff's sexual harassment and retaliation claims were tried to a jury in September 2003. The sole issue before this court is whether Plaintiff suffered a tangible job detriment (also referred to as an adverse employment action). Plaintiff contends that this was an inappropriate issue for the jury to decide because it is a question of law. Contends that an issue of fact existed as to whether Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action and that it was a proper jury question. Plaintiff claims that she did suffer an adverse employment action because she was denied tenure in March 2001. She was informed on April 9. Informing her that her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-1012.htm">98-1012 -- MILLER V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO -- 07/19/1999<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3385.html">KIMBERLY ADAMS V. IRS<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioners.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3314.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide whether a pension plan amendment which expands the types of post retirement employment that trigger mandatory suspension of early retirement benefits violates ERISA's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-3150.htm">00-3150 -- AQUILINO V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS -- 07/23/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This is an appeal from the district court's denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff Marie Aquilino was hired as an assistant professor in the Department of Art History at the University of Kansas (KU). Her teaching reviews were mixed. Was described as at times abrasive. <p> In December 1997. Were accepted by a supervisory committee comprising faculty and administrators from outside the Art History Department. She claimed she was denied tenure because of her sex. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0873n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. The plant had been underperforming for some time and was scheduled to be shut down in 2004 or 2005. The joint venture was formed because Ford and ZF hoped to utilize ZF's CVT technology and Ford's experience in the mass production of transmissions to produce the CVT transmission. Provided employment at another Ford plant was available. The Ford salaried employees were presented with a compensation package that was. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1672.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. One site under consideration was a parcel in Scarborough Downs owned by Davric. Charging that the site was environmentally sensitive and alleging other mischief behind the Postal Service's preference for the Rand Road site. Plaintiffs maintain that the Davric site was preferable and that this rejection of the site was in retaliation for their outspoken opposition to the Rand Road site.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/98-3208.htm">98-3208 -- THIESSEN V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORP. -- 09/28/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3175.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was successful in his oral interview. The Commission is charged with overseeing the application process and nominating candidates for appointment to the Muncie Fire Department. Which is a condition precedent for employment with the Muncie Fire Department pursuant to state law. The record does not indicate where the Institute is located. 2 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042600p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before this Court are six challenges on appeal from the five plus year litigation that ensued. Background Davis is a police officer of African American descent who began working for the Trenton Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1999.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zimmerman</SPAN> were on brief. P.A.</SPAN> was on brief. These are cross appeals in a Title VII religious discrimination case. The sum of which was reduced to the statutory cap of $300. Johnson was repeatedly harassed over the course of his nine year employment in Spencer Press's janitorial department by his supervisor. Arguing that the evidence did not show that the harassment was because of Johnson's religion and did not show that it was severe and pervasive. We reject these contentions and affirm. </P> <P> Johnson cross appeals the district court's holding that he was not entitled to any back pay or front pay after he was fired from his next job. He also argues that the district court erred in rejecting the contention that he was unable to get a subsequent job because he was psychologically disabled. That Spencer Press is responsible for this disability because it stems from the harassment he endured while he was an employee there. </P> <P> We affirm the limitation on Johnson's front pay and back pay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3064.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was hired as a program administrator by the IDNR in 1991. She was paid the second highest salary among the four program administrators. Were male. Her direct supervisor was Richard Little. He was constrained by the IDNR's Merit Compensation Guidelines. Was Mr. Hildebrandt's salary was less than all three of the other program administrators. Although all three raises were within the IDNR's Merit Compensation Guidelines for the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1553p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was incorporated in Delaware. It </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1950.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Cover sheet. Powers were on brief for appellant. Sharton and Segal & Feinberg were on brief for appellee. Clarke was sexually harassed. Was barred for failure to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies before the Massachu setts Commission Against Discrimination ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0433n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It does not change our conclusion that the district court's grant of summary judgment was proper. Who is black. Was born and raised in Nigeria. Momah applied for and was selected to fill a vacant Administrative Judge position in the EEOC's Memphis. It was his intention that they would join him in Memphis once he found a house for the family. Momah was hospitalized after being physically assaulted by a white supremacist at a gas station. He did not have the authority to do so. The director of the Memphis office where Momah was then working as an Administrative Judge. EEOC headquarters notified Momah that it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0800p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellees/cross appellants are 23 of 28 former yard and clerical employees of Pennsylvania Truck Lines. The United States Supreme Court has issued a decision clarifying the standards by which federal employment discrimination cases are to be judged. We will vacate the judgment that was entered and remand for a new trial. We will also decide several subsidiary issues relating to individual claims and plaintiffs. I. Because our resolution of the legal issues will require a new trial. It is not necessary to discuss the facts in great detail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0135n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. The case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings. Was hired by the Highland Park School Board (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1186.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are former teachers of the Academy. Background The Academy is a K 8 charter school in Longmont. It is chartered by. Dorothy Marlatt was the principal of the Academy <hr> when Plaintiffs were employed there as teachers. Plaintiffs were employed as teachers pursuant to written contracts with the Academy. The Plaintiffs allege that they were told the Academy </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0732p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 29 U.S.C. § 623(a).[fn2] The trial jury found that Seman's age was a determining factor in U.S. That Seman would have been employed by U.S. That Seman was entitled to backpay amounting to $150. Cement's motion for a new trial on the ground that the jury verdict was excessive and the result of passion. (5) the district court erred in instructing the jury that it could consider whether Seman's employment would have continued with U.S. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the final amended order of the district court entered on September 23. That the case was properly submitted to the jury. Cement's remaining arguments is therefore obviated by our determination that the erroneous jury instruction requires reversal of the final amended judgment entered by the district court on September 23. At oral argument counsel urged that we consider issues relating to backpay only if we were not persuaded that the erroneous jury instruction required reversal. Will reverse the September 23. Will remand for a new trial on Seman's ADEA claim against U.S. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/005026.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claimed she was subjected to harassment and ultimately terminated. Is an undergraduate and graduate educational institution. Is a state college of New Jersey. 2 considered the evidence and applied certain legal principles. We will therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. Facts Most of the underlying facts are undisputed. Where there is a dispute. Abramson was the only Orthodox Jew employed in the School of Education at WPC. The days she missed on account of Jewish holidays were not counted as sick days. An untenured professor's academic performance was to be reviewed on an annual basis. Retention and tenure decisions in Abramson's department are first considered by the Curriculum and Instruction Retention Committee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054114p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge An apolitical government employee appeals a grant of summary judgment rejecting her claim that she was fired in violation of her First Amendment rights because she failed to support the administration or political party in power. Galli alleges that she was unlawfully terminated from her position with the Commission because she was neither an active Democrat nor a 3 supporter of then newly elected Democratic Governor James McGreevey. She was hired to serve on the Commission in 1984 during the Republican administration of Governor Thomas Kean. She was the Commission's Director of Environmental Education. Galli claims that she was not registered with a political party and kept her lack of political affiliation private. Galli never shared her political views with her supervisor and was not asked to participate in any partisan political activity. Solid waste management is an affiliate of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs and is governed by a seven member Board. Levin was appointed as the Director of the Department of Community Affairs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0054p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DiCarlo was terminated near the end of his probationary employment period for what the Postal Service asserted as unsatisfactory work performance. DiCarlo alleges that he was terminated on the basis of national origin. He also asserts that his termination was in retaliation for the Equal Employment Opportunity ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4295.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the decision to enforce a non final tribal court judgment is a matter of discretion. Federal courts will ordinarily err on the side of enforcement of such judgments in the name of comity. We will not enforce a tribal court judgment. The regulatory authority of the tribe is often the issue which looms largest. This case is no exception. These appeals require us to examine the regulatory authority of the Navajo Nation over the activities of a nonmember of the tribe when the regulated entity is another independent sovereign acting in its governmental capacity. Although the district court's judgment was ultimately in their favor. The preliminary injunction is interlocutory in nature. Much of the preliminary injunction is now moot. Defendants are nearly all entitled to sovereign immunity. The specific defendants in that case relevant to these appeals were as follows: San Juan County. SJHSD is a special service district organized pursuant to Utah Code § 17A 2 1304 (1999). Is tasked with providing health care services to the citizens of San Juan County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec96/95-9262.opa.html">BENNETT V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bennett v. That the soldier was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. Attended the rehearsal of a band of which he was a member. Williams was carrying a black nylon bag that concealed a personal .380 caliber semi automatic pistol. Was in the room along with Risby when Williams arrived. Bennett also alleges that the Government was liable for failing to adequately supervise the dormitory where she suffered her injuries. Show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-11373.opn.html">RICCARD V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. (9/24/2002, NO. 01-11373)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/034039P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She contends that she established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her relationship or association with her disabled newborn child was a motivating factor in the Bank's decision to eliminate her position and effectively terminate her employment. She argues that summary judgment was therefore improperly granted on several of her claims.1 For the reasons discussed below. Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following is a summary of the background facts as set forth in the district court's summary judgment order. When she was promoted to Senior Vice President (VP) of Operations and Information Systems. She was promoted to Executive VP of Retail Banking. Cherpes was engaged by the Bank to help stabilize and reengineer the Operations Department. Strate was granted permission to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3844_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Died following an altercation with two Chicago Police Officers who were allegedly attempting to restrain her while taking her into custody. Claims to have witnessed the entire event. Evans claims he was systematically harassed. Were dismissed in part. A second amended complaint was thereafter filed2 alleging inter alia that: the named officers violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec96/95-9262.opa.html">BENNETT V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bennett v. That the soldier was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. Attended the rehearsal of a band of which he was a member. Williams was carrying a black nylon bag that concealed a personal .380 caliber semi automatic pistol. Was in the room along with Risby when Williams arrived. Bennett also alleges that the Government was liable for failing to adequately supervise the dormitory where she suffered her injuries. Show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5036a.html">SONYA G. STEWART V. DONALD EVANS<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellees.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2236.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are obliged to construe the facts in favor of the parties who prevailed under the verdict. I. We begin with a view of the facts that favors the winning plaintiffs as we are required to do under existing law. Who is African American. He received positive performance reviews throughout his career there and was selected to train other employees because of his skills. His position changed titles over the years but he remained essentially what is now known as a gas journeyman. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. We will refer to the court below as the district court for ease of understanding. 1 No. 03 2236 3 place in this case. Lamarce Tart is also African American. He too is a gas journeyman. Was his own boss. Made his own decisions and was not subordinate to a lead man (as was the case with two man trucks). Law is Caucasian. Although the plant workforce was half AfricanAmerican and half Caucasian. All of the supervisors and managers were Caucasian. Law told Curtis he was going to keep a close eye on him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415404.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Walker advised Cotton that she was being hired primarily for seasonal work and should expect her hours to decrease after the Christmas holidays. Walker was disciplined with a written reprimand and a warning. None of which was reported to Cotton's supervisors or the Cracker Barrel hotline. Before Cotton was asked to interview for a position at Cracker Barrel. Cotton admitted that this reprimand was consistent with Cracker Barrel policy. Cotton argued that Popee failed to complete the scheduled performance evaluation that was due 30 days after Cotton's hiring date. Popee testified that the date for Cotton's evaluation fell during the holiday season and she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/04/011976P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The detectives' division was located in the back of the sheriff's office. Jones's work station was set apart from the other clerical personnel who worked in the front office area. Jones was divorced and cohabitated with a man. Page and Goosic frequently called Jones a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-11373.opn.html">RICCARD V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. (9/24/2002, NO. 01-11373)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002109.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-3063.htm">02-3063 -- PEOPLES MORTGAGE CORP. V. KANSAS BANKERS SURETY CO. -- 03/26/2003<BR></A><BR> Holding it was entitled to indemnification to the extent it settled the litigation in good faith and for a reasonable amount. The district court ruled that the amount paid was reasonable and entered judgment for the full settlement amount plus interest. The court also awarded attorneys' fees under a Kansas statutory provision that permits a court to award an insured attorneys fees if the court concludes an insurer's refusal to pay a claim was without just cause or excuse. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/984075P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal brought by Marcia Hocevar (Hocevar) from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Purdue Frederick Company (Purdue). The district court found that the plaintiff was a member of a protected class (a female) but that she failed as a matter of law to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact on both of her claims. The court found that Hocevar had not shown a hostile work environment because it concluded that the alleged harassment was neither pervasive nor severe. Hocevar consistently out performed her then co worker Timothy Amundsen (Amundsen) and was often ranked in the top sales percentile nationally. Hocevar was promoted three times in five years. Her performance was rated at the highest possible level. Hocevar transferred to Minnesota due to her impending marriage where she was placed under the supervision of Amundsen. There is no appeal from that order of dismissal. 2 performance rating despite the fact that she demonstrated a sales growth of seven percent. Wisconsin.2 This action was taken by Amundsen despite the fact that Hocevar exceeded Amundsen's own prior sales record in the same territory and received bonuses for exceeding sales quota. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/77B8AFEA1963C8A988257123007FF796/$file/0435408.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I1 Because we are reviewing a district court's order granting summary judgment. ELECTRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION Electra Central Credit Union (Electra) is a not for profit cooperative that provides financial services. Who is African American. Cornwell supervised the nine employees who worked in Electra's loan department and managed Electra's lending operations until Cornwell was promoted to Vice President and Chief Operating Officer in 2000. Electra's transition to a sales culture was ongoing when. Sharp did not specify what changes he was considering. Cornwell was the only African American member of the management team. Cottrell responded that she did not think that race was a factor in Sharp's reorganization process but Cottrell suggested that Cornwell express his concerns to Electra's Board of Directors. Sharp also testified that Cornwell was the most qualified of Electra's employees to manage Electra's lending business. 2 CORNWELL v. Who was a less experienced executive than Cornwell. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959262.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the soldier was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. Attended the rehearsal of a band of which he was a member. Williams was carrying a black nylon bag that concealed a personal .380 caliber semi automatic pistol. Was in the room along with Risby when Williams arrived. Bennett also alleges that the Government was liable for failing to adequately supervise the dormitory where she suffered her injuries. Show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111373.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 2 William Riccard was demoted by his employer. The result of Riccard's demotion was to lessen the amount of disability payments he received. We have before us appeals that Riccard has filed contesting orders and judgments. Is also an appellant to the extent necessary to challenge sanctions imposed against Rasch. We will take up each of them after setting out some background. 3 I. BACKGROUND Riccard began working for Prudential in 1970 as a sales representative and was eventually promoted to sales manager. He was demoted from his position as sales manager back to sales representative. He was subsequently placed on long term disability leave and received disability payments from Prudential until November 1999. We will refer to them in the order in which they were filed as Riccard I IV. That Prudential had violated their employment agreement by demoting him from sales manager to sales representative which resulted in his disability benefits being lower than they would have been had he not been demoted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/98-1570a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Linda Sher. With her on the brief were Jonathan P. When the Board learned that one of these employees was an undocumented alien. It denied him reinstatement and terminated his backpay as of the date the employer discovered he was unauthorized to work. Because the Supreme Court has held that undocumented workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Because the limited reme dy awarded here is within the Board's discretion and furthers the purposes of both labor and immigration law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/99-4204.htm">99-4204 -- KINGSFORD V. SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 04/24/2001<BR></A><BR> One of his claims asserted that he was deprived of property without due process of law in his termination as head football coach at Highland High School ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-1077.htm">01-1077 -- U.S. V. CONSUMER INSURANCE GROUP -- 02/19/2002<BR></A><BR> Holmes is postmaster at the United States Post Office in Poncha Springs. The CIG employees informed Holmes that CIG was receiving the per pound bulk postal rate at the post office in Howard. She also informed the postmaster in Howard that CIG was not entitled to this rate. <p> Almost two years later. Holmes was at the Howard post office to provide postmaster training. She asked the current postmaster whether CIG was receiving the per pound bulk rate. She learned that it was. The Office of the Inspector General and a postal systems coordinator (an auditor) that CIG was defrauding the Postal Service by providing false information in order to obtain a lower postal rate. Although it later became clear that the interviewees were already aware of the fraud. The relator is entitled to a portion of the proceeds recovered in the action or settlement. <u>Id.</u> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1598.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They also maintained that they were retali 2 No. 01 1598 ated against after complaining about the discrimination. Arguing that the jury was improperly instructed. I Schobert and Werner were employees in IDOT's highway sign shop in Fairview Heights. One and only one of their colleagues was female: Tame Roth. They maintained that Roth was not required to do the more difficult and dangerous jobs and that she never performed the preventative maintenance work on her assigned truck required of other employees. Schobert further claimed that when he was forced to work with Roth. All the undesirable assignments were reassigned to either him or other male employees. He was given notice of a pre disciplinary hearing to review the incident. He filed an internal complaint No. 01 1598 3 of sex discrimination because his complaints regarding Roth's special treatment were being ignored. Schobert testified that he was forced to use a cutting torch near natural gas. That he was assigned to dig on an interstate that had not yet been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9550.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Lila Andersen is the surviving spouse of Harold Andersen. His COPD was a compensable form of pneumoconiosis arising out of his employment as a coal miner. The overriding issue before us is whether the Board erred in denying Mr. We give </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-1448.htm">98-1448 -- WILLIAMS V. IMHOFF -- 02/14/2000<BR></A><BR> At issue is the arbitrability of claims asserted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Former securities exchange employees who were terminated from their employment by defendants and who allegedly did not receive proper valuation for stock held in their former employer's profit sharing plan. Gene Andrist are all former employees of Hanifen. That is required to be arbitrated under the rules. Plaintiffs were allegedly encouraged to. Plaintiffs assert the Hanifen Plan was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-4070.htm">99-4070 -- LIGHTON V. UNIVERSITY OF UTAH -- 04/24/2000<BR></A><BR> At issue is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Dr. A subordinate female researcher from South Africa who was visiting his laboratory for two to three months to learn advanced respirometry techniques for insects. Lighten simply stated: <p> The actions of the University of Utah have made it impossible for me to retain my academic post in the Biology Department without compromising my respect for both this institution and myself. <p> Following Dr. Also commented on their fortune in resolving the situation so quickly.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012401.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brickhouse declined the offer because he was participating in a vocational rehabilitation program administered by the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/98-3208.htm">98-3208 -- THIESSEN V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORP. -- 07/03/2001<BR></A><BR> Reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> GE is the parent company of General Electric Capital Services (GECS). Within GECC is the Retail Financial Services unit (RFS). It was renamed Montgomery Ward Credit Services. Who was born on March 7. Thiessen was placed on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/043602P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGrann was characterized as professional. FAC hired McGrann as Managing Director of FAC's Institutional Equity Sales Department under the following terms: We have agreed to pay you a base salary at the rate of $150. Bonuses are based on your contribution. We have agreed to pay you a bonus of not less than $500. Such bonuses will be payable on February 15th of the following year or on such other date as firm wide bonuses are paid. I. Wessels was later acquired by Dain Rauscher. Which was then acquired by Royal Bank of Canada. We refer to McGrann's employer as Wessels. 2 2 We have agreed to give you a loan of $350. Which] . . . will be forgiven in two equal annual installments during the Employment Period provided that you remain employed by us on such dates. We will also recommend to the Board [of Directors of FAC] that you be granted such number of shares of restricted stock of the firm (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-6375.htm">96-6375 -- VICE V. CONOCO INC. -- 08/03/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991390.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The operating profit for the first six months of 1995 was $1. All was not well at the Northumberland plant. Said that the company was prepared to endure a strike to achieve this goal. If subcontracting and mandatory overtime were not allowed. He later emphasized to a group of workers that closing the plant was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1226.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sandoval was a long time employee of the Boulder Police Department. She was eventually appointed to lead the BRCC. After the BRCC was reorganized as a joint operation that included several additional regional law enforcement and fire departments. Her expectation that she would be appointed by the new Executive Committee overseeing the BRCC to the position of Executive Director was not fulfilled. The BRCC was operated jointly by the City's Police Department and the County Sheriff's Office. Sandoval was promoted to the position of supervisor at the BRCC. Who were concerned that Sandoval lacked the technical skills and knowledge of the budget process necessary to be successful in the position of Director. While the Louisville and Lafayette police chiefs did not at that point have any official veto power over Koby's and Epp's decisions. The dissenters were slated to be on the newly established Executive Committee (EC) that would govern the BRCC and have the power to appoint the BRCC's Executive Director once the IGA went into effect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1651.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 03 1651 Rhodes was employed by IDOT as a full time. John Nicholas was the Technician and Matt Mara took the Technician position during her third and final season. The Lead Lead Worker is in charge of employees. The Technician and Lead Lead Worker are responsible for assembling crews and assigning tasks to employees. These positions are the top two jobs at the Yard. Neither the Technician nor Lead Lead Worker are authorized to hire. These decisions are made by the Department Administrative Services Manager. Rhodes was the only female during her first two seasons. Her reviews at the end of both seasons indicated that she was meeting IDOT's expectations. Poladian received some complaints from motorists that her snow route was not sufficiently plowed or that plowing took too long. Her route was changed to a shorter route. Aling was an off site Operations Engineer for IDOT. Testified that he did not have a problem with Rhodes' work and did not receive an answer when he asked Poladian why her route was changed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3615F6674BD8D5288256E1C00053F59/$file/0272578.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Procedural History Johnston Atoll is a United States possession. Located about 700 miles west southwest of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean.1 It is only two miles long and one half mile wide. Gambling and fighting are prohibited. The hip injury is the subject of the instant claim. Which is one of several authorized social clubs on Johnston Atoll. OWCP 463 There are conflicting accounts of precisely what transpired at the AMVETS. It is undisputed that Ilaszczat fell and injured his hip there. None of the soldiers was interested. He described his second encounter with the soldiers as follows: [T]here was a couple of the military guys sitting at the bar and somehow the subject got around to martial arts. . . . [Burum] said he was really good at it and I said. [H]e was pretty insistent upon showing me how he could lift my [sic] leg over my head without touching me. . . . I went to the back of the room where the pool table and that picnic table [were] and I put my drink down on the picnic table and when he went to kick me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQxMTUtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-4115-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We disagree with the district court's conclusion that the undisputed behavior of the individual defendant was. That she was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of sex in violation of federal and state law. It is undisputed that defendant Michael Tintweiss. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/062368P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts are as follows. Captain Davison actively and publicly opposed the Plan and asserts that she repeatedly was denied promotion to the position of Arson Investigator in retaliation for her outspoken and public opposition. Kathy and [her son] were at a neighborhood meeting. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIxOTZfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2196_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The second question is an issue of first impression in the Second Circuit. The burden is on the employer to establish that a Title VII plaintiff made no reasonable effort to find comparable employment and (2) whether. The first question was. Was terminated on February 25. Broadnax testified that although she understood the effect of the decisions by the state labor board and the Connecticut Superior Court was that she could return to work. She testified that she was unemployed. I was waiting for the trial to be over and the date kept moving. So I kind of have been in limbo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/01-5036a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. When he was Inspector General of the Department. Stewart also claims to have kept detailed notes about the initial incident and the acts of retaliation. Freder icks and Taylor knew about this arrangement but nonetheless reviewed the files while Stewart was on sick leave in August. The court also ruled that the profane tirade to which she was allegedly subjected did not constitute sex discrimination. The Supreme Court held that an employee of the federal government may not recover damages when his superior improperly disciplines him for exercising his rights under the First Amendment because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971977.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. She is judicially estopped from arguing that she is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/626A5E633B8887E388256E5C006D2DEC/$file/0255418.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Richard Ceballos filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that he was subjected to adverse employ 3448 CEBALLOS v. Qualified immunity was not available to the individual defendants because the law was clearly established that Ceballos's speech addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer's interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption. Is entitled to such immunity depends on whether he was performing a state or a county function when he took the alleged actions with respect to Ceballos. We hold that in most respects he was acting in the latter capacity. He is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Neither is the County. In 1997 or 1998 he was assigned to the District Attorney's CEBALLOS v. GARCETTI 3449 Office's Pomona Branch and about a year later was promoted to calendar deputy. Told Ceballos that he believed that one of the arresting deputy sheriffs may have lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos was supervising the deputy district attorney assigned to the case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQxMTUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4115-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We disagree with the district court's conclusion that the undisputed behavior of the individual defendant was. That she was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of sex in violation of federal and state law. It is undisputed that defendant Michael Tintweiss. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1529.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. PSC</SPAN> were on brief. Lopez Bras</SPAN> were on brief. Are members of the New Progressive Party (NPP). This fund was to be</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/95a0977p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a district court's judgment predicated on its opinion holding that an employer violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0078n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Including those who would have applied but for the City's pre employment residency requirement(s). Whose applications have since April 17. The district court stated that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0977p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a district court's judgment predicated on its opinion holding that an employer violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-2045.wpd.html">HARRISON V. EDDY POTASH, INC.<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff was again designated... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031559.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was asked to focus on outside marketing and business development opportunities for the company. This role was consistent with preexisting responsibilities and goals that were laid out in his job description and annual evaluations. I. Appellant James is an African American male and an electrical engineer with more than twenty years experience in urban rail transportation. He was recruited to return and rehired as a Senior Associate Level IV. That WMATA officials continued to have concerns about both BAH's performance under the contract and BAH's management structure. James was asked to focus on his preexisting marketing and business development objectives to identify and acquire new clients and new opportunities JAMES v. During this time James was no longer in a managerial role. This allowed James to continue to have billable hours. This </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/993520.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant Johnny Watson alleges that he was r emoved from his position of Account Executive at Eastman Kodak Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A7FC5F0B39BF868A88256FCB007B1F15/$file/0356129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This escrow order directed to Gemstar was predicated upon the district court's conclusion under the statute that these payments. Which were to be made during the course of a lawful investigation by the SEC of Gemstar involving possible violations of federal securities laws. Were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3094.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As such was responsible for the overall operations of the company. Were initial investors in (1) The judgments in favor of Cassandra and John O'Tool on their breach of employment contract claims were not appealed. <hr> Horizon. Pepper's initial goal was to manufacture and sell aluminum jon boats (a/k/a utility boats) he had designed. Was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3CFCD604FEEAFF8F88256C4F0058380E/$file/0115717.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was not in the affected classification. Ulrich received notice that he was being investigated by the hospital for professional incompetence. The hospital refused to accept his recission of resignation and filed an adverse action report against him that leaves the impression that he resigned because he was guilty of the charges brought against him. Ulrich did not have a property right in the position from which he resigned. (2) his protest of layoffs was protected speech under the First Amendment. (3) he set forth sufficient facts demonstrating that allegedly defamatory statements were made in the course of a decision not to rehire him for purposes of establishing a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and (4) further proceedings are warranted on whether Dr. His own higher pay classification was not affected. Objecting that they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991581.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To more than 300 employees at the mine site that 89 employees would be laid off the next day and that the remaining employees would be laid off when the mine was closed in December. Martinka Coal Company and Eastern Associated Coal Corporation (collectively herein </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-8046.htm">98-8046 -- RENAUD V. WYOMING DEPT. OF FAMILY SERVICES -- 02/08/2000<BR></A><BR> His first claim was that Defendant Wyoming Department of Family Services violated the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. His second claim was that the Department violated the Family and Medical Leave Act [FMLA]. Were against Defendant Shirley R. Were against both defendants for breach of an implied contract of employment created by Wyoming government personnel rules and policies and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. <p> The district court entered an order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denying it in part. Judgment was entered in favor of the Department. <p> On appeal. He asserts a lack of evidence to support the jury finding on his FMLA claim. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0180p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Et al. 11 plaintiffs' claim that they were deprived of liberty without due process of law. I. Facts Plaintiff Brown was employed as a full time police officer with the City of Niota beginning in October. Plaintiff Anderson was employed as a part time reserve officer beginning in November. It is undisputed that the mayor did not receive the letter until February 17. To support these allegations the plaintiffs alleged that the statements at the board meeting were false and defamatory and that they requested a name clearing hearing which was denied. He is entitled to a name clearing hearing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-1275.htm">98-1275 -- MALLINSON-MONTAGUE V. POCRNICK -- 09/19/2000<BR></A><BR> ProBank asserts as follows: (1) it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the affirmative defense set forth by the Supreme Court in <em>Burlington Industries v. (2) the district court erred in instructing the jury that Pocrnick was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913345.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Georgia who was transferred to a teaching position. Hinson was the principal of Clinch County High School for four years. She was the first female high school principal hired in Clinch County. Hinson's troubles with the Clinch County Board of Education (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF12E0E9ABD572B788256E5A00707A35/$file/9916325.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Llamas was hired by the District as a temporary. He applied for a 1690 full time position and was interviewed by an oral screening panel. He and the other candidates were allowed to review the questions for a few minutes. Stevens then sent Llamas a letter notifying him that he was disqualified from further consideration because his responses to the interview questions made it evident that he had obtained a confidential copy of the answers. The letter further noted that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/021097P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tademe argues that the district court erred in holding that his employment discrimination claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Tademe also argues that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute as to his hostile work environment and retaliation claims. JURISDICTION Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. At the time Tademe was hired. He possessed a Master of Arts in Public Affairs and was a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Minnesota. Although Tademe maintains that there was no university policy requiring faculty to complete a doctoral degree. Tademe further claims he was told he could not apply for tenure before completing his Ph.D. Even though white colleagues were promoted to full professor without a doctoral degree. Tenure track faculty at SCSU are reviewed for tenure in their fifth year of teaching. Tademe was given paid leave for the spring quarter of 1997 and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1A7924992EA97A888256CCA00114F39/$file/0117316.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Falotti was scheduled to vest his remaining stock options worth more than 85 million U.S. dollars. Oracle brought this action seeking a declaration that Falotti is neither entitled to vest these stock options nor to receive their value as damages. We have jurisdiction and affirm. Oracle contacted Falotti who at the time was an executive with AT&T about a job offer. He was also Though technically Falotti worked for Oracle Switzerland. Because it does not affect the analysis save for one issue discussed in Section IV.C this opinion will refer to both Oracle Switzerland and Oracle Corporation as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054661p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss Fasano's Complaint. Federal Reserve Banks Because the nature of Federal Reserve Banks is at issue in this case. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F382C43F9898192588256B1F00573AA6/$file/9916321.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was authored by Judge Berzon. 16751 D.C. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Hibbs was an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. His request was approved for the full 480 16756 hours (12 weeks) of leave under the FMLA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9A51457859BC53988256B490081CA44/$file/9935668.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected. 1029 OPINION THOMAS. The events leading up to this lawsuit occurred as follows: Little was employed by Windermere Relocation Services. Until she was terminated. The override was based on the assumption that Little would close four transactions per month. One of Windermere's clients was the Starbucks Corporation. She learned from him that Starbucks was dissatisfied with its primary relocation provider. She was to build a business relationship with Guerrero to try to get the Starbucks account. When she awoke he was raping her again. Little was reluctant to tell anyone at Windermere about the rape because. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/96-3381.htm">96-3381 -- JEFFRIES V. STATE OF KANSAS, DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES -- 06/17/1998<BR></A><BR> At issue in this appeal is Ms. Jeffries' allegation that she was subjected to hostile environment sexual harassment. That she was constructively discharged from her job. Leslie Ann Jeffries was employed as a resident chaplain and student in the Clinical Pastoral Education Program (CPE Program) at Osawatomie State Hospital (the Hospital). Residents in the CPE Program are considered state employees. <p> Ms. Jeffries' participation in the CPE Program was governed by a one year contract with the Department of Pastoral Care and Education running from August 30. Ed Outlaw was the director of the CPE Program. Outlaw was the person most responsible for making decisions regarding residents' applications and continued employment. The educational and employment aspects of being a resident chaplain are inseparably linked </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1189.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dillon was formerly a paraprofessional at the Academy. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Background(1) The Academy is a K 8 charter school in Longmont. It is chartered by. Dorothy Marlatt was the principal of the Academy when Ms. Dillon was employed there as a paraprofessional. Her initial performance evaluations were satisfactory. Her primary assignment was to work in the Academy's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1262p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge We are asked to determine whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars a federal court from considering an age discrimination claim against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That was acting in its capacity as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0754p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miller from his job after fifteen years of employment.[fn1] Miller alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-13345.man.html">HINSON V. CLINCH COUNTY BD. OF EDUC. (10/25/2000, NO. 99-13345)<BR></A><BR> Georgia who was transferred to a teaching position. Hinson was the principal of Clinch County High School for four years. She was the first female high school principal hired in Clinch County. Hinson's troubles with the Clinch County Board of Education (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFB41C638909CB8F88256D5C0063E355/$file/9935684.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have received a response and conclude that MALABED v. I The North Slope Borough is a political subdivision of the State of Alaska. Where there is more than one Native American applicant who meets the minimum qualifications for a position. A Native American is a person belonging to an Indian tribe as defined in 25 U.S.C. North Slope Borough Code § 2.20.150(A)(27).1 Plaintiffs/Appellees are not Native Americans and claim that they were denied employment with the Borough because of the Ordinance. Robert Malabed is an Asian American of Filipino descent. The Ordinance was amended to create a preference not only for qualified Native Americans. Appellees Malabed and Emerson were denied employment under the original ordinance. Appellee Welch was denied employment under the amended ordinance. These differences between the amended ordinance and the original ordinance are not material to our analysis. 1 9102 MALABED v. NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH nent employment was rejected in 1998. He was replaced by a Native American. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-13345.man.html">HINSON V. CLINCH COUNTY BD. OF EDUC. (10/25/2000, NO. 99-13345)<BR></A><BR> Georgia who was transferred to a teaching position. Hinson was the principal of Clinch County High School for four years. She was the first female high school principal hired in Clinch County. Hinson's troubles with the Clinch County Board of Education (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0EA70B347B8D1DE888257203005677C7/$file/0417295.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is part of the FEHA and provides. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.1 The court affirms the summary judgment for the Attorney General on Shahar's free expression and equal protection claims for reasons set out by Judges Kravitch and Morgan in their separate opinions. Shahar's claim of violation of substantive due process is not substantially presented on appeal. Worked as a law clerk in the Department of Law during the summer of 1990. clerkship she told other clerks that she was a lesbian. Then that issue would have to be addressed. 1 Shahar was working. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71810B973538386988256A0F005DFD3A/$file/9916325.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is recalled for the purpose of amending the opinion. Is amended as follows: Slip opinion at 1693. No reasonable fact finder could conclude on the basis of this evidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7165a.html">BROWN ANTHONY ET AL V. PRO FTBL INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D13CFEE5F50B0CB88256E5A00707D84/$file/9916321.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was authored by Judge Berzon. 16751 D.C. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Hibbs was an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. His request was approved for the full 480 16756 hours (12 weeks) of leave under the FMLA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0387p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because these claims are untimely under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court properly concluded that no genuine issues of fact remain and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I. Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority is a public agency chartered by the State of Ohio and funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide subsidized housing for eligible citizens of Summit County. The position from which he was suspended on August 9. After which Singfield was escorted from the premises. Which included the following statement: This letter is to confirm our conversation earlier today. That you are being placed on a minimum thirty day unpaid suspension. You are also required to seek assistance for anger management. The reason for this suspension is due to an incident which occurred on August 8. You were sent home for the day. Your keys were found hanging from the lockbox. After examining the keys it was found that six of the keys were duplicated master keys. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982817.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we agree with the district court's finding that Bryan was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident in question. I. The facts are largely undisputed. Bryan was on his way to military logistics class when the car he was driving collided with Ross's motorcycle. Bryan was an active duty Marine Corps Officer permanently stationed in California. He did not have access to a car and obtained transportation from other marines. Certified that Bryan was acting within the scope of his employment and acting in the line of duty at the time of the accident. Bryan now appeals the district court's decision which decided that he was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident and remanded the case to the state court. Ross had the burden of persuasion to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Bryan was not acting within the scope of his employment. The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia certified that Bryan was acting within the scope of his employment and in the line of duty on the morning of the accident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3759_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because most of the offensive comments giving rise to the plaintiff's claim were made outside of her presence and unbeknownst to her. Because those that were directed at her were relatively 2 No. 04 3759 isolated. Was a building services worker at defendant Northern Illinois University (NIU) from October 1988 through May 1999. Her foreman was defendant Jon Slater. He was authorized to reprimand his crew orally. Were left to Slater's boss Thomas Folowell. Were subject to review and grievance procedures pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between NIU and the building services workers' union. A grievance could be initiated by an employee or the union provided that it was filed within ten working days after the protested employment decision became known. Grievances were heard and decided by Thomas Morelock. Employees who take an unscheduled absence are required to inform the foreman's office of the absence during a twenty minute period beginning ten minutes before their scheduled start time. The start time for Slater's crew was 6:00 a.m. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C359ED7293C2F5EB88256E5A00707CC0/$file/9935668.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The events leading up to this lawsuit occurred as follows: 12987 Little was employed by Windermere Relocation Services. Until she was terminated. The override was based on the assumption that Little would close four transactions per month. One of Windermere's clients was the Starbucks Corporation. She learned from him that Starbucks was dissatisfied with its primary relocation provider. She was to build a business relationship with Guerrero to try to get the Starbucks account. When she awoke he was raping her again. Little was reluctant to tell anyone at Windermere about the rape because. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/46EBE96D272A653488256AC5005B9393/$file/9935668.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The events leading up to this lawsuit occurred as follows: 12987 Little was employed by Windermere Relocation Services. Until she was terminated. The override was based on the assumption that Little would close four transactions per month. One of Windermere's clients was the Starbucks Corporation. She learned from him that Starbucks was dissatisfied with its primary relocation provider. She was to build a business relationship with Guerrero to try to get the Starbucks account. When she awoke he was raping her again. Little was reluctant to tell anyone at Windermere about the rape because. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/942192.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts of this case are set forth in the opinion of the district court. Those facts are undisputed.1 Briefly. 1 Because both parties have chosen not to provide a transcription of the record below or to identify factual errors made by the district court. We 2 those facts are as follows. Miss Munday resigned and was rehired as a truck driver by Waste Management of Maryland in August 1988. She was subjected to a number of instances of sexual harassment. After Miss Munday walked off the job because of her dissatisfaction with the truck with which she was provided for the day. She was properly fired for insubordination. A hearing was commenced. Waste Management of Maryland held a safety meeting at which the employees were told not to sexually harass Miss Munday. Although these measures were taken thereafter. Other employ will take all. Since these are uncontested. There is no basis for applying the `clearly erroneous' rule </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1033.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gallart</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/994043.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide if a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/984075P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will affirm if the evidence. Shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Purdue is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Another company official made sexual advances toward her and pulled her close to have full body contact during a dance at a company gathering. Two other company officials talked during a presentation that Hocevar was giving. Hocevar was injured in a car accident in which she received injuries that kept her off work for several weeks. She was only able to work for a little more than a month before having to take another absence because of continuing pain from injuries sustained in the accident. Purdue sent a letter to Hocevar in The company official who called Hocevar a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0190n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An amended complaint was filed on August 10. Boyd were dismissed with prejudice. A second amended complaint was filed. A third amended complaint was filed. This was the final complaint filed. It was filed by all the plaintiffs to the original complaint. All of whom are AfricanAmerican. A jury trial was conducted. Arguments were heard on this motion. A ruling was issued from the bench by the district court. The appeal of Plaintiff Johnson was dismissed by this Court for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Before final judgments have been entered as to all parties in the action). A final order was entered. Substantive Facts Plaintiff Johnson was hired by Defendant. Plaintiff Johnson sought but was denied promotions into management positions. Factual details are provided in the sections analyzing the claims. Judgment as a matter of law on a specific issue is appropriate when. (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/149A9B529B5319598825714C00552F1C/$file/0356412.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. Equitable Tolling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1748.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Connolly LLP</U> were on brief for defendants.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0028p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tuttle's Employment with Metro Plaintiff Patricia Burlin Tuttle ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B465B2BB01387703882569EC00697D67/$file/9916325.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Llamas was hired by the District as a temporary. He applied for a 1690 full time position and was interviewed by an oral screening panel. He and the other candidates were allowed to review the questions for a few minutes. Stevens then sent Llamas a letter notifying him that he was disqualified from further consideration because his responses to the interview questions made it evident that he had obtained a confidential copy of the answers. The letter further noted that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971544.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who suffers from heart problems that have resulted in a series of heart attacks. Greenbrier Chrysler/Plymouth/Jeep/Eagle (Greenbrier Chrysler) are separate dealerships that shared common owners and management in late 1994. He was later promoted to the position of used car sales manager notwithstanding a serious heart attack shortly after he was hired. Was quite satisfied with his position at Greenbrier Dodge. It was a lifetime commitment. . . . it was a job for life. They emphasized that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-5233a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2024B9863BDEA09288256DCE00764415/$file/0157013.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Liu failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Amway's reasons for Defendant Amway is now named Alticor. AMWAY CORPORATION 15593 terminating her were pretextual and. The district court held that Amway had not interfered with Liu's FMLA/CFRA leave because Liu was on leave when she was terminated. Xin Liu was the first scientist hired in the Concentrate Development Department of the Nutrilite Division of Amway Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021258.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We remand on its conclusion that Colley & Colley's medical evidence did not rebut the presumption that Breeding's disability was due to pneumoconiosis. While the motion for reconsideration was pending. Delta Breeding's file was forwarded for association with Breeding's original claim. The ALJ found the evidence insufficient both to establish pneumoconiosis and to invoke the § 718.305 presumption that Breeding's total disability was due to pneumoconiosis. Breeding was not entitled to the presumption under § 718.305. The new evidence included the fact that Breeding's employment at Wright's Super Market was actually employment in Wright's coal mine operation. The case was transferred back to the ALJ. The ALJ (yet again a different one) found that Breeding was entitled to the § 718.305 presumption and that Colley & Colley had failed to rebut the presumption. He was credited with a year of coal mine employment. The ALJ found that Breeding had worked 16.75 years in coal mine employment from 1941 through 1970 and thus was entitled to the § 718.305 presumption that his disability was due to pneumoconiosis. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615969.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that individuals are not amenable to private suit for violating the ADA's anti retaliation provision. Where the act or practice opposed by the plaintiff is made unlawful by the ADA provisions concerning employment. We also hold that individuals are not amenable to private suit for violating § 760.50(3)(b) of the FOAA. Myriam was served by a non party to the lawsuit. Service was executed to Wayne in his personal capacity. Myriam and Wayne filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on the ground that claims against individual defendants are not cognizable under either the ADA or the FOAA. Service was executed to Troy on October 4th. Albra argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because (1) Advan was properly served. Advan has moved for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 on the ground that Albra's appeal is frivolous. Service of Advan Albra argues that service to Advan was proper because he mailed a copy of the summons to Advan's registered agent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913345.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Georgia who was transferred to a teaching position. Hinson was the principal of Clinch County High School for four years. She was the first female high school principal hired in Clinch County. Hinson's troubles with the Clinch County Board of Education (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2006.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-5261a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DF1ECC3ABC2DCC3F88256E5A00707A92/$file/9916325.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is recalled for the purpose of amending the opinion. Is amended as follows: Slip opinion at 1693. No reasonable fact finder could conclude on the basis of this evidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/01-4046.htm">01-4046 -- SNYDER V. CITY OF MOAB -- 12/29/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sale was completed in January 2000. Leonor's goal was to use this as an opportunity to attract and retain Dr. Stockman asked for a raise to $55.00 per hour because that was the average pay for dentists in the locale. Stockman was not producing and billing the average amount. It is disputed whether this reason was communicated to Dr. Was being paid $55.00 per hour. His pay was recalculated every year based upon his prior year's production. Stockman's work week was scaled back from four days to three. Who were both in their thirties. Stockman went home that day claiming he was ill. Stockman was in bed with flu like symptoms. Leonor claimed that he did not have the heart to terminate Dr. He alleged that he was 73 years old at the time and was subject to disparate treatment because of his age. He alleged he was afforded fewer operatories (rooms in which to do dental work). He was not given a dedicated and competent dental assistant. New patients who required more expensive treatments were steered away from him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/972691P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is the second time the case has been before this court. Was a 21 year old Native American whose car had become stuck in a snowbank on a rural South Dakota highway.2 The district court initially found Primeaux was walking toward the town of Martin on a cold night when Kenneth Scott. Scott was driving a white government vehicle with a police light bar on top under BIA authority outside the reservation. He was returning from a police training session in New Mexico. The district court originally denied vicarious liability on the ground that the police officer was not acting within the scope of his actual authority since he was outside his jurisdiction. The district court concluded that because the officer was not acting within his actual authority. There was not a sufficient nexus under state law to demonstrate the foreseeability of the assault. Once again found there was an insufficient nexus between the assault and the scope of the officer's either actual or apparent authority. She now The detailed facts of this case are set forth in our previous opinion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200511/04-7162b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\04 7162 Khan9aaaa.odl.wpd
	O:\OPN\KATE\ROCHON\ROCHON V. GONZALES.V21.WPD With him on the briefs were Steven G. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. The district court should not have dismissed Rochon's Title VII claim because Rochon was not required to demonstrate his employer's retaliatory act was related to his employment. It is unclear whether the district court had direct jurisdiction over the claim arising out of the settlement agreement. I. Background In 1981 Donald Rochon began working as a Special Agent Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. * 3 in the Omaha office of the FBI. Alleging the FBI's failure to investigate was discriminatory and 4 retaliatory. Did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim arising out of the settlement agreement. The Tucker Act provides that the
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Was on brief for appellee Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Senior Circuit Judge requires state and local officials and general employees who are seventy years old or older to take and pass a medical examination as a condition of continued employment. The issue on this appeal is whether such a requirement violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Requires Group 1 employees of the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions who are seventy years of age or older to pass an annual medical examination as a condition of continued employment.1 1Section 90F provides in its entirety: Any member in service classified in Group 1. Or any other person who would be classified in Group 1 except for the fact that he is not a member. That he is mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of his office or position. No deductions shall be made from the regular compensation of such member or other person under the provisions of this chapter for 2 2 Group 1 employees are
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Ellis was hired by the Agency in 1966 as a GS 5 level Secretary. She was immediately converted to an Analyst. Was subsequently selected for the career training program. Ellis was placed on rotational assignment with the Counterterrorist Center (
	OPINION/ORDER Texas Pacific Group's agreement to restrict the hiring of certain employees upon Lucent's sale of Paradyne Corp. was a violation of S 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. W e hold the no hire agreement was a valid covenant not to compete that was reasonable in scope and therefor e not a violation of S 1 of the Sherman Act. Also we hold plaintif fs have presented sufficient prima facie evidence of AT&T and Lucent's specific intent to interfer e with an ERISA funded employee pension fund to survive summary judgment on the ERISA S 510 claim. The pr emise for the hiring bar was AT&T's belief that one of Paradyne's most marketable assets was its skilled employees. Was considered essential for the sale of Paradyne. Were pr ecluded from seeking re employment at any other AT&T division or affiliate after the trivestiture. This
	SMITH V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS (11/27/2001, NO. 00-15708) Lacked standing to bring suit because the FMLA affords a private right of action only to individuals who suffer adverse action while they are employed. Because we find that the provision of the FMLA that provides a right of action to
	OPINION/ORDER CV 99 00462 SOM OPINION* *Publication is pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36 2(g). 2659 2660 COUNSEL Richard Turbin. That therefore the case was governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (
	NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE V. USA With him on the brief were Michael W. Of counsel on the brief was John B. With him on the brief was David M. Based upon its conclusion that Medicare was a secondary payer and that New York Life was responsible as the primary payer. Paid for services without regard to whether they were also covered by an employer group health plan. These amendments are known as the ". They are codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1395y. It is the ". It is the ". 73 (5th Cir. 1993).
	OPINION/ORDER The facts of the case are not in dispute. Was offered re employment by letter dated March 29. The offer included the following condition:
	SMITH V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS (11/27/2001, NO. 00-15708) Lacked standing to bring suit because the FMLA affords a private right of action only to individuals who suffer adverse action while they are employed. Because we find that the provision of the FMLA that provides a right of action to
	OPINION/ORDER Judge Hilton dismissed Pueschel's FTCA suit on the bases that it (1) should have been brought under Title VII. (2) was barred. By the doctrine of res judicata because in a prior Title VII action brought by Pueschel the FAA was found not to have discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and work disability or to have retaliated against her for filing prior complaints. (3) failed to state a claim in light of the fact that Virginia employers do not have a common law duty to ensure that their employees are not subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation. Specifically his conclusion that Pueschel was precluded from bringing a Title VII action asserting discrimination and retaliation claims arising out of her FAA employment. Pueschel further contends that she was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the FAA's motion to dismiss her FTCA suit because the district court did not hold a hearing prior to ruling on the FAA's motion. Pueschel argues that Judge Wexler erred by concluding that her Title VII suit was barred by Judge Hilton's dismissal of her FTCA suit.
	OPINION/ORDER I. The facts underlying the judgment in this case are reported more fully in our prior opinion. (Newhouse never challenged his 1987 termination and its only relevance to the present appeal is as background information.). His application was ultimately denied on the basis of his age. Holding that the front pay issue was equitable in nature and should not have been submitted to the jury. Satisfied the judgment and was necessary to avoid IRS penalties against it for nonpayment of withholding taxes. We find no abuse of discretion. 4 The key question in this appeal is whether Newhouse's front and back pay awards constitute
	OPINION/ORDER CV 99 00462 SOM OPINION* *Publication is pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36 2(g). 2659 2660 COUNSEL Richard Turbin. That therefore the case was governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (
	REYNOLDS V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 She was not selected for any of the promotions. She maintains that Defendants discriminated against her because she is white. Refused to promote her even though she was the most qualified applicant for the various positions. Reynolds applied to become a middle school assistant principal.2 Reynolds interviewed for the position and was placed into a pool out of which principalship vacancies would be filled. We presume that Reynolds' reference to a principalship was to the middle school assistant principal position. of Schools. Defendants assert that they chose to leave the position vacant and later eliminate it because of anticipated budget cuts.3 Reynolds claims that they eliminated the position under the pretext of budgetary concerns to keep her from becoming Coordinator once they realized that she was the most qualified applicant for the job.4 Reynolds cites as evidence of pretext the fact that the Bilingual/ESOL department budget increased from $1. Reynolds further highlights that she was the sole white person working in the Bilingual/ESOL Department.
	OPINION/ORDER Bayonne is a
	98-2328 -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPOTUNITY COMMISSION V. HORIZON/CMS HEALTHCARE CORP. -- 07/31/2000 The summary judgment was premised on the Commission's twofold failure to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination: (1) the Charging Parties' lack of qualification for modified duty because they were not injured on the job. (2) the absence of evidence the Charging Parties were treated less favorably than non pregnant but otherwise similarly situated employees. The matter is before this court only on the Commission's appeal of the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the disparate treatment claim. Facts The following facts are undisputed or. Because the Commission is the party opposing summary judgment. The Charging Parties are former employees of Defendant. The Charging Parties were placed under work restrictions by their respective physicians. The work restrictions included various limitations on the amount each Charging Party was allowed to lift. Each Charging Party could have performed all of her job duties with the exception of the heavy lifting. Defendant had instituted and maintained a policy pursuant to which it allowed employees to work modified duty positions consistent with any work restrictions imposed by the employee's physician (the
	CHARLES V. BURTON (3/12/1999, NO. 96-9212) Which holds that the Burtons were joint employers and therefore statutorily required to carry insurance or a liability bond. In this case involving the Agricultural Workers Protection Act. The district court found that the appellees were not joint employers of the farm workers under the AWPA and did not award the farm workers actual damages for a violation of the AWPA's registration provision. Both were to share in the profits. The workers were entitled only to statutory damages under 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1). Refused to award actual damages because the workers' injuries were
	OPINION/ORDER That Local 1970 was therefore responsible for Sidwell's injury. Sidwell was employed as the president of Local 1970. Sidwell was the only full time employee of Local 1970. VIRGINIA INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS 3 approximately one hour per week at locations where longshoring activity was taking place. The remainder of Sidwell's work week was devoted to representing Local 1970 on supervisory committees of the Hampton Roads Port Authority away from the waterfront terminals. Sidwell's primary employment was with VIT as a container repair mechanic.3 At VIT. Sidwell inspected the shipping containers offloaded from cargo vessels and the trailers on which they were placed for transportation by truck before they left the terminal. The inspections were performed in VIT's
	99-1141 -- SELENKE V. MEDICAL IMAGING OF COLORADO -- 05/10/2001 Lynn Wright was Ms. A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspection indicated that foreign material was interfering with the reading of mammograms. Although there was an odor of acetic acid in the darkroom. Around the time that the study was completed. She noticed that ventilation was lacking. After the vents were installed. Selenke observed that the darkroom was still not receiving fresh air. An additional vent near the area where the chemical odor was strongest. MIC had made all the changes in the ventilation system that she had requested and that those changes were
	KAY COLES JAMES, V. ELISABETH VON ZEMENSZKY Argued for petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER Lacked standing to bring suit because the FMLA affords a private right of action only to individuals who suffer adverse action while they are employed. Because we find that the provision of the FMLA that provides a right of action to
	OPINION/ORDER England is substituted for his predecessor John H. We affirm the district court's ruling that appellants' prelimitations period claims are time barred. With regard to appellants' properly presented failure to promote claims arising out of incidents occurring before and after their charges were filed. BACKGROUND Appellants are all African American. During which employees from the Engineering Department were reassigned to the Production Department. They were removed to
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Was on brief. At issue is whether the creation of a private cause of action against a state for money damages under the personal medical leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Our holding is narrow: the present legislative record does not demonstrate that the personal medical leave provision of the FMLA is an appropriate response necessary to remedy or prevent unconstitutional gender discrimination practiced by the states as employers.
	OPINION/ORDER CV 99 00462 SOM OPINION* *Publication is pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36 2(g). 2659 2660 COUNSEL Richard Turbin. That therefore the case was governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (
	OPINION/ORDER She was sexually harassed and constructively discharged. The district court held that the arbitration provision is invalid as a matter of Tennessee law because it is an unconscionable contract of adhesion and is insufficiently bilateral. Invalid as a matter of federal law because it did not make clear that Cooper was waiving her right to a jury trial. No. 02 5702 The district court also held that the arbitration provision is unenforceable. I. BACKGROUND Terry Rogers and Larry Mays are the sole shareholders of MRM. The then prevailing rules of the [FAA]) will apply. The parties agree MRM did not separately advise Cooper that she was giving up her right to a jury trial. She was forced to quit in August 2000. Standard of Review We review de novo the district court's holding that the arbitration agreement is invalid and unenforceable. Will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous: If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety. It would have No. 02 5702 Cooper v.
	OPINION/ORDER The KRS disability retirement benefits plan (hereinafter
	OPINION/ORDER Who all have the human immunodeficiency virus (
	OPINION/ORDER An amended complaint was filed on August 10. Boyd were dismissed with prejudice. A second amended complaint was filed. A third amended complaint was filed. This was the final complaint filed. It was filed by all the plaintiffs to the original complaint. All of whom are AfricanAmerican. A jury trial was conducted. Arguments were heard on this motion. A ruling was issued from the bench by the district court. The appeal of Plaintiff Johnson was dismissed by this Court for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Before final judgments have been entered as to all parties in the action). A final order was entered. Substantive Facts Plaintiff Johnson was hired by Defendant. Plaintiff Johnson sought but was denied promotions into management positions. Factual details are provided in the sections analyzing the claims. Was violated. This issue (stated in the complaint) is waived. The prohibitions on discrimination in the Tennessee Human Rights Act are generally coterminous with those under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	OPINION/ORDER Campagna were on brief. Nelson and Fitzhugh & Associates were on brief. Was laid off. Arguing that Kodak's layoff decision was discriminatory because it resulted from a ranking process that relied on racially biased performance appraisals prepared in 1990. That Thomas's claim was time barred because the performance appraisals were conducted outside of Title VII's statutory limitation period. Both issues are before us on appeal. We find Thomas's claim to be timely because the discriminatory appraisals that she is challenging first caused her concrete harm when they led to her layoff in 1993. Because we also find that she has presented enough evidence to support her claim that the performance appraisals were racially biased. This is one such case. When an employer utilizes scores from past performance appraisals in an objective formula to determine who will be laid off. The accrual date for the limitations period is the date of the notice of layoff. Once there is sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact that the employer's articulated reason for an adverse employment action is a pretext.
	OPINION/ORDER Timmerman was terminated from her position as branch manager at U.S. A position in which she was responsible for managing (with co worker Chad Royle) several bank branches and supervising the branch managers at those locations. Was re titled. Timmerman and her male co worker were demoted to the position of branch manager. Bank was terminated. Timmerman was fifty two years old. Claims instead that she was not aware the refunds were made in contravention of company policy. That she was only looking out for the financial interests of her co employees. Bank sought and was granted leave to assert state law counterclaims against Ms. Timmerman sought and was granted leave to amend her complaint to add claims for retaliation under Title VII and the ADEA. Bank's asserted legitimate reason for her termination is pretextual. Timmerman additional pages of briefing is best characterized as a
	OPINION/ORDER Line 3 the citation to Ellerth is corrected to read
	CHARLES V. BURTON (3/12/1999, NO. 96-9212) Which holds that the Burtons were joint employers and therefore statutorily required to carry insurance or a liability bond. In this case involving the Agricultural Workers Protection Act. The district court found that the appellees were not joint employers of the farm workers under the AWPA and did not award the farm workers actual damages for a violation of the AWPA's registration provision. Both were to share in the profits. The workers were entitled only to statutory damages under 29 U.S.C. § 1854(c)(1). Refused to award actual damages because the workers' injuries were
	OPINION/ORDER Was protected by sovereign immunity. The district court concluded that the United States' certification and substitution were erroneous. The district court found that the removal to federal court was therefore improper and entered an order remanding the case to state court. After addressing the complex question of whether we have jurisdiction to review the district court's rulings and concluding that we do. As well as its rulings that the United States' certification and substitution were erroneous. Borneman further alleged that as he was walking away. McCauley
	01-2223 -- AN V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA -- 02/02/2004 Because that job classification required current enrollment in a graduate program and An was not so enrolled. She was reclassified in May 1997 as an
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: At slip op. 2596. When a medical examination is conducted at the proper time and in the proper manner. Or that an employer is foreclosed from refusing to hire an applicant who does. The panel judges have voted to deny appellee's petition for panel rehearing. Judges Graber and Fisher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be considered. Who all have the human immunodeficiency virus (
	OPINION/ORDER CV 99 00462 SOM OPINION* *Publication is pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36 2(g). 2659 2660 COUNSEL Richard Turbin. That therefore the case was governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Norval Williams was employed by the St. He was fired after he made a comment in the media questioning the guilt of an individual who had been convicted of killing a police officer. Was hired by then St. Williams' responsibilities was to oversee security for the St. An African American youth who was tried before an all white jury for the murder of a white South Bend police officer. At some time during the trial or after the verdict was returned. Williams commented to television and newspaper reporters that
	97-2343 -- PERRY V. WOODWARD -- 12/20/1999 Circuit Judges.
	OPINION/ORDER Paine in a negligence suit brought against him by a student who was injured in a physical education class at Shattuck St. Paine is the head golf professional for Legacy Golf Corporation (Legacy). Paine's only duty at Legacy during the winter months is managing the golf shop. Shattuck is a college The Honorable Michael J. Shattuck is also the sole shareholder of Legacy. The two are separate legal entities. This was the first physical education class that he taught at the school during the school day. Paine worked with Headmaster Brown and Shattuck Athletic Director John Sommer in designing an indoor golf facility in the basement of Shattuck's gymnasium that was then used for the class. Shattuck student Lilian Wu was struck in the head by a golf ball. The amended complaint claimed that Shattuck was vicariously liable for the acts of its agent. That the golf class was a joint enterprise between Mr. Paine was not an insured under Legacy's policy because he was not acting within the scope of his employment with Legacy or performing any duties related to Legacy's business at the time of the accident.
	01-1508 -- WELLS V. COLORADO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION -- 04/18/2003 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER Michael White who was also African American hired Watson as a Project Coordinator in the City's Department of Personnel (
	OPINION/ORDER The district court granted summary judgment in favor of T Mobile concluding Berry was an
	OPINION/ORDER Submits a 1 Although defendant is now
	OPINION/ORDER Reeves was in the process of cleaning with a hose the cutter head on the dredging ship. Reeves was thrown off the dredge onto a blacktop ramp four to six feet below. The Becky Beth was assigned to a non navigable lake entirely within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Reeves argues that under the
	OPINION/ORDER Weston's Title VII claim was premised on a hostile work environment theory. Weston asserted that he was subjected to a hostile work environment as a result of the PDOC's failure to discipline Merithew after she had physically touched Weston on two occasions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Weston asserts that it was error for the court to dismiss for failure to state a claim. We decide that Weston's allegations concer ning the PDOC's response to the two incidents of physical touching were not adequate to state a Title VII hostile work environment claim. Weston avers that it was error for the court to grant summary judgment. Factual Background Weston is a corrections officer at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. Merithew is also a corrections officer and held a similar position in the prison kitchen. Although testimony indicates that W eston and Merithew did not have an amicable working relationship. While his back was turned. She was given a written reprimand. He was subjected to offensive comments.
	98-1125A -- BULLINGTON V. UNITED AIR LINES INC. -- 08/12/1999 1999 The opinion filed in this case contains a clerical error on line 1 of page 27. The characters
	OPINION/ORDER This is a diversity of citizenship action by Elmer Ernest Romines and his wife and daughters (collectively. Included in these conditions was a provision that the Consulting Agreement would automatically terminate if Progressive Federal was ever determined by federal regulators to be in an unsafe and unsound financial condition. The annuities provided that Progressive Federal was The Honorable George F. Elmer Romines was designated the payee. Romines' wife and daughters were named as beneficiaries in the event of his death. Romines was paid under the annuities pursuant to the Consulting Agreement. Separate examinations of Progressive Federal by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) concluded that Progressive Federal was technically insolvent. Progressive Federal and OTS entered into a Consent Agreement under which Progressive Federal acknowledged that it was insolvent and could be placed in receivership and that both Progressive Federal and OTS would seek a healthier institution to merge with Progressive Federal.
	KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788) Circuit Judge:
	KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Alleging he was terminated in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (
	97-9544 -- TRIMMER V. U.S. STATES DEPT. OF LABOR -- 04/06/1999 Which is owned by the Department of Energy but run by the University of California. In the summer of 1988 a doctor determined that Trimmer was fit for light duty work. A process for finding injured employees new positions suitable to their new physical limitations and work restrictions.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Michael C. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. After the article was published. To ask why it was silent on Ballenger's marital status. Believing that at least some of his readership was interested in the separation. Ballenger was unavailable. Taking place during regular business hours while Gurley was working in Ballenger's office suite on Capitol Hill. It focused on legislative issues particularly trade and textiles that were of interest to Congressman Ballenger and his 3 constituents. Adding that it was amicable. I was acutely aware that my ability to continue advancing my legislative agenda in Congress and to effectively represent my district depended on the continued trust and respect of my constituents. I was acutely aware that a public scandal related to my marital status could undercut my ability to carry out these responsibilities. Both in the near term and in the long term if it were to become an issue in a future re election campaign. Ballenger stated that CAIR was the
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Faragher v. Only four to six of the forty to fifty lifeguards were female. The Marine Safety Headquarters was a small. Including designating work assignments and supervising physical fitness routines.<p> The Marine Safety Section was organized according to a clear chain of command. Who was directly supervised by the Recreation Superintendent. Marine Safety Headquarters was in a remote location. Terry pressed himself against Ewanchew's buttocks and simulated sexual movement while the two were at the water fountain. Other female lifeguards similarly were subjected to Terry's uninvited and offensive touching and to his demeaning and offensive comments.<p> Lieutenant Silverman made offensive comments and gestures to both Faragher and Ewanchew. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1696.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for appellant. A claim was submitted on LaSorsa's behalf for benefits under the Portsmouth School District's group long term disability insurance plan. LaSorsa sought a declaration that she was entitled to coverage in Superior Court in New Hampshire. Her action for a declaratory judgment was removed to the District Court for the District of New Hampshire on diversity grounds. LaSorsa's Employment with the Portsmouth School Department The following facts are based on the affidavits and deposition testimony submitted by the parties in their 2 summary judgment motions. The parties agree that the material facts of this case are undisputed. LaSorsa was named to a position as a first grade teacher and her salary was set at $18. The letter also told her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981110.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. McNair was assigned to the DOE Help Desk Support task. Each employee was assigned a GSA contract title and skill level that together determined the rate at which CDSI billed GSA for the services of that employee. Because the GSA contract titles were based solely on the needs of the individual subscribing federal agency. That is to say. Each employee's compensation and terms of employment with the company were determined without respect to the GSA contract title to which he might at any one time be assigned. Modified at the behest of DOE representative Joe Kleshick to reflect more accurately the support functions the company was actually performing at the Savannah River Site. One </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/995116.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They are entitled to an abatement of the penalties assessed under those provisions. Concluded that reasonable cause was not established by the Taxpayers because financial distress was the only fact and circumstance supporting their failure to pay and deposit employment taxes timely. Because we believe the Brewery bright line test is inconsistent with both Congress' creation of a reasonable cause exception and Treas. We believe the better reasoned approach is the one set forth in Fran Corp. v. We have concluded that reasonable cause existed for the Taxpayers' failure to pay and deposit their employment taxes timely. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and enter judgment for the Taxpayers. I. The following facts are undisputed and have been largely stipulated to by the parties. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-4878.ma2.html">FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Faragher v. Only four to six of the forty to fifty lifeguards were female. The Marine Safety Headquarters was a small. Including designating work assignments and supervising physical fitness routines.<p> The Marine Safety Section was organized according to a clear chain of command. Who was directly supervised by the Recreation Superintendent. Marine Safety Headquarters was in a remote location. Terry pressed himself against Ewanchew's buttocks and simulated sexual movement while the two were at the water fountain. Other female lifeguards similarly were subjected to Terry's uninvited and offensive touching and to his demeaning and offensive comments.<p> Lieutenant Silverman made offensive comments and gestures to both Faragher and Ewanchew. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2738.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While she was employed by the City of Waukegan (the City). Leslie McPherson alleges that she was sexually harassed. Her claims that the City was liable for Copenharve's torts under a respondeat superior theory and her demand that the City indemnify any judgment against Copenharve. She was promoted to Clerical Technician II sometime around September 1999. McPherson was one of two clerical technicians and reported directly to Edna Nieves. Michelle Weland was the office manager. It was Nieves who conducted McPherson's performance reviews. When he asked her what color bra she was wearing. What color is your bra today. (Appellant's Br. 1 It is undisputed that Copenharve was McPherson's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-9069.opn.html">SCI LIQUIDATING CORP. V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. (7/20/1999, NO. 98-9069)<BR></A><BR> SCI Liquidating Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041560np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Was a wholly owned subsidiary of Raytheon Engineers & Constructors International. Which was. LaFata and other class members were the beneficiaries of RE&C's Termination of Employment Policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-9069.opn.html">SCI LIQUIDATING CORP. V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. (7/20/1999, NO. 98-9069)<BR></A><BR> SCI Liquidating Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/97-7019a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Sally M. With them on the brief was Christopher L. To those claimants who have thus far not settled with the unions. Although we are reluctant to prolong this unduly protracted litigation any longer. I. Background The background of this case is set out in full in our prior opinion. Although referrals were available to non union </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F912654A654769BD882570DF007BCE38/$file/0435187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude that diversity jurisdiction is proper and that Kroske's age discrimination claim under the WLAD was not preempted. Is a federally chartered National Banking Association that was formed in accordance with the National Bank Act. The Bank is governed by a board of directors. Which is empowered by the Bank's bylaws to elect and discharge officers. Kroske was notified that her branch was not meeting the Bank's goals and quotas for business activity. Although Kroske contends that her branch was the smallest in the area with the fewest employees. That she was short staffed. The other branch managers in the region were in their twenties and thirties. While Kroske was fifty one years old. Kroske contended that she was replaced by an employee who was in his mid twenties and possessed less experience than Kroske. Filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Kroske's state discrimination claim was preempted by the National Bank Act. Contending that she was not an officer under § 24(Fifth) and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-8031.htm">03-8031 -- RENNARD V. WOODWORKER'S SUPPLY INC. -- 06/09/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Nancy H. The following facts are undisputed or are as alleged by plaintiff. <p> Plaintiff began working at WSI's facility in Casper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0295n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Adams filed a complaint alleging disparate treatment in violation of Title VII after he was reprimanded and terminated from his job in the TDFA's Division of Mental Retardation Services. Claims that he was subject to disparate treatment as a result of a dispute that arose while he was collecting money for the purchase of appliances for the Division's break room. Adams alleges that he was the victim of months of discriminatory and retaliatory treatment after the incident. Factual Background The facts in this case are not in dispute. Adams was employed as a Residential Program Specialist in the TDFA Division of Mental Retardation Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2302_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Donna Lewis is a police officer in the Chicago Police Department. The district court granted the defendants' The City of Chicago is the real party in interest for claims against the Chicago Police Department and therefore we have adjusted the caption accordingly. She was transferred to a Tactical Unit where she was a plain clothes officer dealing regularly with drug dealers and gangs. The chain of command had Lewis reporting directly to a sergeant who in turn was supervised by a lieutenant. Defendant Williams was Lewis's supervising Lieutenant. Return to Chicago on September 30th. officers who completed riot training in September 2002 were eligible to participate. furlough or regular days off to qualify. ! A lone female officer will not be sent since there are two (2) persons to each room. Her name was initially placed on the list of IMF attendees from her unit. Lewis's name was removed from the final list submitted from her unit and she would not go to Washington. The defendants' explanation is that Lewis's unit did not have another qualified female officer interested in going to Washington. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032076.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Including whether Honor's departure was voluntary. Was allegedly one such colleague. Callahan and Honor were in separate departments. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2029p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mondzelewski argues that the District Court erred in holding that he is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA because he is not substantially limited in the major life activity of working. Which was handed down after the District Court ruled in this case. Mondzelewski contends that the District Court 2 erred in rejecting his retaliation claim on the ground that he is not disabled. The relevant facts are as follows. He injured his back lifting boxes of meat and was treated by Dr. Mondzelewski was again released to work with the same lifting restrictions. Workers were generally given schedules that allowed them free time in either the mornings or the afternoons. Workers generally were not required to work in the evening on weekends on a regular basis. These shifts were considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0288p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was subsequently replaced by Henry. Rezaii are all Caucasian. It noted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962788.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:1 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012304.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the arbitration agreement is enforceable and all of Adkins' claims are arbitrable. I. Labor Ready is a temporary employment agency that provides manual day labor to companies throughout the United States. Where they wait on the premises until jobs are assigned to them. A fee of between one and two dollars is deducted. Adkins contends that Labor Ready employees were statutorily entitled to payment for waiting time at Labor Ready's dispatch office. He claims that if this amount of time was added to each employee's workweek. He also alleges that Labor Ready employees were entitled to compensation for the cost of commuting to and from job sites at the prevailing rate of $.35 per mile. Was itself contrary to law. The Policy is contained within an enclosed box on the employment application. INC. is on a day to day basis. That is. I will be deemed to have quit unless and until I request and receive a work assignment at a later date. Harassment or wrongful termination that I believe I have against Labor Ready and all other employment related issues (excluding only claims arising under the National Labor Relations act [sic] or otherwise within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board) will be resolved by arbitration as my sole remedy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0893n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this dispute is the interpretation of a severance provision in an employment contract between Plaintiff Appellant George M. Reardon was employed as Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Kelly. Unambiguously shows that Reardon was not entitled to a severance payment following his termination in 2004. 000 in salary and agreed to pay the remaining rent on his office lease until a sub lessee was found. The restricted share and stock option awards and the office lease reimbursement will be canceled. If your termination by the Company is other than for cause. You will be paid a separation allowance representing the difference between your first year's compensation of $256. 500 guaranteed STIP payment) and the compensation payments you will have already received. Until he was terminated without cause on June 9. Arguing that he was entitled to receive a separation allowance under the unambiguous language of the employment agreement. The parties have accepted the $256. Reardon asserted that he was owed his entire compensation during his approximately six years of employment with Kelly. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981481A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 25 a comma is inserted after the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/031545P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> So the 1998 agreement was not implicated and Curby had no right to severance 2 benefits. The district court rejected the ERISA claims after concluding the 1998 employment agreement was not at issue because there had been no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-3255.htm">97-3255 -- COLLINS V. OLD REPUBLIC TITLE CO. OF KANSAS CITY INC. -- 12/23/1998<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff was hired as an at will employee. Held a leasehold interest in the commercial building that was the subject of the sale. Providing her work was satisfactory. The case was tried to a jury on June 24 26. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant on August 19. Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the type of damages Plaintiff incurred were not recoverable under a theory of promissory estoppel. Which the district court should have sent to the jury. We will uphold a judgment as a matter of law only if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-8029.htm">99-8029 -- APGAR V. STATE OF WYOMING -- 08/02/2000<BR></A><BR> Apgar was the first female patrolman to serve in Division C. <p> Ms. Apgar on her first day some people were not happy with her assignment to the division. Apgar quickly learned one of the patrolmen who was unhappy with her arrival was Carl Clements. Patrolman Clements was assigned to oversee Ms. Apgar felt Patrolman Clements was unsupportive from the beginning and hoped she would fail. When a citizen asked Patrolman Clements who was in his patrol car. Patrolman Clements was originally assigned as Ms. Apgar felt Patrolman Clements was openly hostile toward her on the firing range. Apgar to court as was the usual practice because Ms. Apgar's interactions with Sergeant Pudge were terse and unfriendly. Apgar sensed Sergeant Pudge was uncomfortable around her. Apgar as often as he should have and provided her first performance review in a public place with another patrolman present. She also claims she was regularly excluded from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031280.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was duly removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Interrogatories and affidavits . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-4008.htm">01-4008 -- MORONI FEED CO. V. MUTUAL SERVICE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. -- 05/01/2002<BR></A><BR> While coverage was effective. The suit was removed to federal court. The district court also concluded that exclusion t of the Umbrella policy was ambiguous. Mutual Service appeals the district court's finding that exclusion t is ambiguous and its Umbrella policy provides Moroni Feed coverage for the Nielsen suit. If the insurance policy's language is clear and unambiguous. Coverage A of the Umbrella policy is inapplicable. <p> Coverage B of the Umbrella policy provides insurance coverage for injuries not covered by underlying insurance provided that the particular type of injury is not specifically excluded. At issue is exclusion t. Noting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The Agency also conducted background checks using the Decennial Applicant Name Check ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1749.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court was required as a matter of law to observe these subtle distinctions when it ruled on Meridian's motion for summary judgment. The district court was also entitled to rely on the materials each party cited as a basis for its decision. Although some of our reasons for reaching this decision are different from the district court's. This generally favorable assessment of Johnson is tarnished only by a single write up. Which was mistakenly given to Johnson on two separate occasions. Johnson and white co worker Josh Goad applied for and were elected to these positions by their colleagues. That positive event was clouded. When Springman was asked why he was not going to run for the team leader position. He proclaimed that there was no need to compete for that job since it was a foregone conclusion who would receive the position. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310387.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that Plaintiffs were not engaged in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2152E69C72CCF10B88256AC5005B5652/$file/9917562.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 1627: Delete the paragraph beginning with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-1170a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kenniff was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Of a Board order holding that Capital is a successor employer within the meaning of NLRB v. Capital argues that (1) the Board's finding that Capital was a successor because it acted with anti union animus in refusing to hire union workers is not supported by substantial evi dence. (2) under Burns it was entitled to establish the terms and conditions of employment it would offer initially to the employees of its predecessor. (3) the Board's remedial order is punitive. For the reasons stated below we reject Capital's first two arguments but agree that the Board's order is punitive. AFL CIO was the exclusive bargaining representative of the Ogden cleaning employees. That he was not pleased with the quality of the work Ogden had done. As was its general practice. Because Kaplan was con cerned that KCR would not be able fully to staff the Bulova building. Kaplan testified that because hiring the Ogden em ployees </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972575.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which alleged racial harassment and retaliation in connection with his at will employment relationship with Diamond Auto Glass ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A5D6E9B2FCAECC7888256EF900570890/$file/0256818.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended. The amended opinion and Judge Silverman's dissent have been sent for filing. Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of his ability to earn a living and suffered economic harm. In that plaintiff was rendered unable to pursue gainful employment while defending himself against unjust charges and while unjustly incarcerated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1391p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to consider once again the proper allocation of burdens in cases involving allegations of discriminatory employment actions. Which is rarely available. The issue in the specific matter before us concerns the elements of a prima facie case under the familiar McDonnell Douglas scheme in a case in which the plaintiff employee was terminated. There is little in this case about which the parties agree. Was hired by one of the appellees. That she was laid off on October 5. Much is in dispute: who Ms. Marzano's employer was at any one time. Whoever it was. Was doing financially. What the jobs of people hired after she was laid off entailed. What qualifications were required to perform those respective jobs. Why she was laid off. Who needs to establish the reason and what is necessary to do so. Of one thing we are certain: on September 5. Marzano was hired by Computer Science Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3653728C55546958825734D0053178F/$file/0516577.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Dibles assert that Ronald Dible was a police officer whose rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated when he was terminated for participating in (performing in. Was running a website featuring sexually explicit photographs and videos of his wife. It was as simple as that. A fee was required. He was free to view the website's sexually explicit photographs and videos. The purpose of the bar meets was to have fans of the website meet Megan Dible. Were open to the public. Attendees were free to take photographs. Some of whom were partially nude. The Dibles' photographs from the bar meets were compiled on a CD ROM and were then sold through their website. After establishing that he was. The press reported that the website was run by the Dibles and that he was employed as a city police officer. The result of that publicity was disquieting to say the least. Testified that she was called a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCE1972AF7F0010488256C9500638647/$file/0135766.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The answer to that question is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/77DCF4F385244CAE88257114005B1893/$file/0435187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005 is amended as follows: 1. 2. Footnote six is deleted in its entirety. The first sentence of Part I ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043229np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Could have status adjusted to that of a lawful temporary resident. If certain requirements were met. Any alien who files a nonfrivolous application for SAW status during the requisite application period is granted an employment authorization allowing him or her to engage 1 Pub. 100 Stat. 3359. 2 legally in paid employment while his or her application is pending. Employment authorization is issued in one year intervals pending final determination of an application for temporary resident status. If an application for employment authorization is not adjudicated within 90 days. An applicant is permitted to submit additional or newly discovered evidence not available at the time of the RPF's determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e)(2)(B). The AAU is authorized to make the final administrative decision in each individual case. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(3)(iii). 2 Formerly named Legalization Appeals Unit. 3 The IRCA directs the Attorney General to establish a single level of administrative review to examine the denial of a SAW application. 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e)(2)(A). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05b0007n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. PNH objected to the settlement on the ground that the restrictive covenants were no longer property of the bankruptcy estate. The decision of the bankruptcy court is REVERSED. I. ISSUE ON APPEAL The issue in this case is whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining that the trustee's settlement with PNH did not include the restrictive covenants from the Appellee's employment agreement with the debtor. An order is final if it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EC1D72CC1EBB90FC88256E5A00707CBF/$file/9917562.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 1627: Delete the paragraph beginning with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972640.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that her termination was in retaliation for her complaint of discrimination fourteen years earlier. Holding both that Tinsley's filing of her charge was untimely and that there was no genuine issue of material fact sufficient to support her claim of retaliation. We hold that Tinsley's filing of her charge was timely because the Virginia Council on Human Rights is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2579.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962788.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: 1 1 Judge Edmondson announces the judgment for the Court in this 3 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity case. We agree with the Northern District of Alabama that suits in by private parties for against ADEA States federal court 6 violations are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. The cases were appealed for us to decide whether Congress abrogated sovereign immunity when it enacted the relevant statutes. 3 Because this appeal presents only questions of law. This appeal is properly before this Court under the collateral order doctrine. The facts of each Plaintiff's claim will not be discussed. Discussion A district a court's order to denying dismiss or a granting motion complaint against a State based on the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity is reviewed by this court de novo. 2507 n.7 (1980) (Eleventh Amendment principles are not applicable to suits in state court.). 10 4 Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause could. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/033058P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 This case asks whether an employer is strictly liable for a single incident of supervisor sexual harassment.2 Jamie McCurdy (McCurdy). The employer was not previously on notice of the alleged harasser's prior like conduct or propensity to act. The employer is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Surely this is what Title VII expects of employers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/002176P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Phillips was hired as a social service worker by the State of Missouri in the Department of Social Services. Phillips was assigned to the Kansas City office in the foster care division licensing unit. Phillips' immediate supervisor in the Kansas City office was Collings. Who in turn was immediately supervised by Rosalyn Wilson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/97-5075a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. Which imposes liability on mine operators for payment of benefits to miners who have developed pneumoconiosis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUxMzEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5131-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) dismissing claim that plaintiff was not afforded professor emeritus status in retaliation for speech related to a matter of public concern. The alleged deprivations were pleaded in claims made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim of defamation also was alleged. Was later voluntarily withdrawn by Zelnik. As he was unable to demonstrate the loss of a benefit resulting from FIT's retaliatory failure to afford him professor emeritus status. The District Court also found that no reasonable fact finder could have determined that the conduct of defendantappellee Brown constituted harassment of the type that would have deterred a reasonable person from exercising his free speech rights. The District Court's dismissal of Zelnik's First Amendment claim for failure to demonstrate retaliation by adverse employment action is the only ruling challenged on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the District Court. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BACKGROUND Zelnik is a retired faculty member of the Fashion Institute of Technology ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313177.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Off duty conduct available for pay per view on the Internet is entitled to First Amendment protection. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs appellants Ronald Thaeter and Timothy Moran were deputy sheriffs with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/952633P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Linda and Isaiah Anthony are employees of the United States Postal Service. Anthony was a homosexual and that Mrs. The Anthonys asserted that the other defendants were responsible for supervising Ms. Attorney certified that all of the defendants were acting within the scope of their federal employment when the allegedly injurious conduct occurred) and the sworn declarations of all of the defendants except Mr. Wilson's 22 defamatory remarks were not within the scope of her employment. The court refused to consider the Anthonys' amended state court complaint because it was filed after the defendants filed the notice of removal in the federal court. Finding that the defendants were acting within the scope of their employment when the alleged misconduct occurred. The court then dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because the United States is immune from defamation suits. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). On the same day that the order was docketed. Wilson was not acting in the scope of her employment. These amendments commonly known as the Westfall Act because they were a response to Westfall v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6300.htm">98-6300 -- SIMS V. HALLIBURTON CO. -- 07/14/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Halliburton Co. hired plaintiff Larry Don Sims. Contending he was terminated in retaliation for reporting violations of environmental law and because of his age. Halliburton challenged Sims' retaliation claim on the ground that it alleged he was discharged for making internal reports of federal law violations. Which is not sufficient to establish a violation of Oklahoma public policy. Our task is to achieve the same result in federal court that would have been reached in state court had the state claims been pursued there. <u>See</u> <u>Perlmutter v. While we are not bound by the rulings of the lower Oklahoma courts. We will generally follow them absent compelling reasons not to. <u>See</u> <u>Perlmutter</u>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2278.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and AFFIRM. I. Plaintiffs are police officer employees of the City's Department of Public Safety ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/94-2131.html">ARMIJO V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> Who were terminated by Prudential Insurance Co. of America ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0392p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/991090P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Appellants worked for Kellogg under an oral contract during summer months as replacements for regular employees who were on vacation. Eight were hired in 1988. While others were precluded from taking it because of poor attendance or other disciplinary problems. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence. Demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact. That the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We will apply the substantive law of the forum state. If the state law is ambiguous. Breach of Contract Appellants claim that they were promised </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7012a.html">GARY CORAMAE ELLA V. LONG, EDWARD<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1690.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Procter & Hoar were on brief for appellant. Seigle & Liston was on brief for appellee. Hammond ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/94-4209.html">WATSON V. UNIVERSITY OF UTAH MED. CTR.<BR></A><BR> The district court found that DOPL was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages. Although the DOPL is mentioned as an appellee a few times in plaintiff's appellate briefs no argument is made against the DOPL defendants. No argument is made on appeal with respect to the state law claims. her public employment and in her nursing license. Insofar as they were sued in their official capacities. Are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. (2) the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as they were sued as individuals. I Plaintiff was working as a labor and delivery nurse on February 22. Was present plaintiff delivered the baby. The parties dispute whether that condition was met here. Plaintiff's version is that she knew that Dr. Was present at the birth. She stated that the delivery was not imminent when the doctor entered the room. That plaintiff told the doctor it was her baby to deliver. He also stated that although he had been ill that evening he could have delivered the baby. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/04-5315a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Kimberly Carey Williams. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in No. 04 5315. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Congressman Henry J. With her on the briefs was Toby R. With him on the brief were Douglas B. I. No. 04 5315 is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that the Office of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson discriminated against Beverly A. No. 045335 is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that the Office of Senator Mark Dayton discriminated against Brad Hanson because of a perceived disability and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. 4 The Office of Representative Johnson and the Office of Senator Dayton (collectively. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971214.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Therefore was an employee at will. I. Summary judgment is appropriate when a party who will bear the burden of proof at trial fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to the case. When reviewing a district court's determination that summary judgment is appropriate. The facts are as follows. At that time she was employed as an Operational Assistance Coordinator. Ralte was promoted to the position of Director of that project. Initiated by a group of eight non profit and educational organizations of which HKI was a part. The cover letter noted that she 1 Ralte's selection as the OMNI project's DPD was contingent upon USAID approving funding. 3 accepted the provisional appointment to the new position of DPD for OMNI on the condition that she receive adequate financial compensation for personal losses associated with relocating from the New York City area to the Washington. Ralte was not a party to this joint letter. The letter was not addressed to Ralte. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/963561P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the order of the district court2 granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee E. That there is no evidence to support the district court's conclusion that his rights under a separate Employment Agreement were waived by his independent act of voting to convert Blanch Company from a partnership to a corporation. The district court's summary judgment on the age discrimination claim is affirmed. Is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bloomington. Is a Canadian citizen In with substantial experience and expertise in the reinsurance business. in Montreal. Enan & Co. was acquired in a merger transaction based reinsurance brokerage firm. A MinneapolisBlanch Partnership's acquisition of Enan & Co. was for Mr. Enan was contemporaneously presented a copy of the existing Blanch Partnership Agreement3 and executed a separate Employment Agreement with Enan & Co.4 The Employment Agreement provides that Mr. Shall have no further obligation or liability to the Employee ... if... (iii) the Employee voluntarily terminates his employment hereunder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-2215.htm">98-2215 -- CISNEROS V. WILSON -- 09/11/2000<BR></A><BR> Holding that Plaintiff could not prove: (1) that she was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/041741P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. The complaint was originally filed by ten plaintiffs. The remaining plaintiffs are: Terry Tatum. Count I of the first amended complaint alleged that plaintiffs were each subjected to racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). The spelling of this name as it appears in the court's caption is consistent with the caption on plaintiffs' complaint. 2 2 The case proceeded to trial on February 23. Numerous witnesses were called to the stand. There was no direct evidence. Plaintiffs Tatum and McNeal were terminated as probationary employees of the City because they falsified their written employment applications. Plaintiffs Hardy and Randolph were terminated for testing positive for illegal drug use. Failed to identify an adverse employment action taken by the City or to show that the alleged harassment was motivated by race. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0499n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both of the Georgetown projects were prevailing wage projects. Steven Mitchell was the original supervisor of the Brown County project. Mitchell was moved to the OHP project. Authorization cards were not given to Stapleton because of the perception that he was 2 a friend of Pack (the project manager) or to Treaux because of his vocal opposition to the Union. The Danville jobsite was approximately 250 miles from Georgetown. Who was trying to open the store by Christmas. Wandstrat were ordered to transfer. Three of the four transferred employees were unable to travel to Danville. DeVaux informed Temp Masters that he could not relocate because he was a single father and had no one to watch his 3 son. He was informed that there was no work for him in Georgetown. Which was typically a holiday. We will uphold the Board's findings if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug16/03-20965-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS The facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. Three of which are at issue in this appeal.2 either party could terminate the agreement without First. Doctor was unable to work. This Agreement is automatically terminated upon . . . your disability lasting longer than three (3) calendar months that prevents you from performing the essential functions of your position with or without accommodation (unless the [Clinic] reviews the circumstances and grants written waiver of termination).3 The fourth ground for termination. Is not relevant to this appeal. She was injured in a non work related accident. Outlining the benefits that Doctor was entitled to receive under the Clinic's Family Medical Leave ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/942200A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 1 2 the sentence is changed to begin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0005p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Since the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75. To the extent it is doing business with Keizer or Grant Rent All) from competing with United in the Target Area for a specified period of time. The district court held that this language prohibited Keizer from operating such a business only if it is physically located within the Target Area. Which is physically located in Newaygo County. Assuming arguendo that the above quoted language from ¶ 7.2 is ambiguous. The district court further held that there was no parol evidence in the record to support United's contrary interpretation of the agreement. Tortious interference with contract and civil conspiracy claims because there was no evidence that Defendants had wrongfully interfered with United's business. The district court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty claim because there is no evidence that Keizer did not devote his full efforts to United's business. B. Substantive Facts United is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Greenwich. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8089.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that Herrera has presented evidence in support of this claim sufficient to be entitled to have a jury resolve it. I. BACKGROUND Lufkin is a publicly held company engaged in manufacturing and selling oilfield equipment. Lufkin's headquarters are located in Texas. Herrera's immediate supervisor was Bruce Cunningham. Who was stationed in Lufkin's Texas offices. Herrera alleged that Moore created a racially hostile work environment for Herrera by frequently referring to him as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C3690C26EE778E288825721A007B5E85/$file/0316702.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. Attempted to address the conduct of only one of the 20 inmates who were responsible for 56 incidents of exhibitionist masturbation in the security housing unit. The jury heard the Inspector General's findings that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11F0921BC90EF60A88256FFE008233A4/$file/0415744.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company appeals the district court's summary judgment in this insurance coverage dispute involving the United States government.1 Underlying the coverage dispute is a state tort action arising out of an auto accident. Was insured by Nationwide. At the time of the accident was an active duty member of the armed services of the United States. Because Liberatore was a federal employee. This case was heard and decided by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). LIBERATORE 5175 would have responsibility for indemnifying him if. He were acting within the scope of his employment. The district court determined that Liberatore was not acting within the scope of his employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Liberatore was traveling from his permanent duty station in Norfolk on temporary additional detached duty (TAD) travel orders which authorized him to travel via Los Angeles to Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake and Naval Air Weapons Station Point Mugu. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0309p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2074.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judith Volovsek claims that she should have been promoted in 1993 but was not because she is a woman. The ongoing failure of Volovsek to secure a promotion over the following five years and her unhappiness with how she was being trained and supervised led to two more administrative complaints and. The remaining claims were properly dismissed on summary judgment. She was responsible for inspection. She claims that she was required to move 25 miles to live within her work territory while two of her male colleagues. Were not required to move. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1047a.html">DAILY NEWS LOS V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/987611.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was fired from his tenured professorship at Pennsylvania State University following a series of run ins with his new supervisor. He claims that his tenured professorship was a property interest entitled to protection under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Because we find that this argument like Nicholas's other grounds for appeal is without merit. We will affirm. Nicholas was named Associate Professor of Physiology at Pennsylvania State University's Noll Human Performance Laboratory. The University claims that Nicholas worked full time in the emergency room and consequently was unable to work regular hours 2 at Noll Lab. Claiming that his emergency room work was only part time. Evans who was now Nicholas's supervisor requested that Nicholas provide him with information about his curriculum vitae and research plans. Evans requested an assurance that Nicholas would maintain a full time presence with regular hours at the Lab a concern he claims was raised by Nicholas's outside work. Nicholas was not forthcoming with this information. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-1120.htm">97-1120 -- SANCHEZ V. DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS -- 12/31/1998<BR></A><BR> At issue in this appeal are Ms. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/02-3415.htm">02-3415 -- HILL V. STEVEN MOTORS INC. -- 05/05/2004<BR></A><BR> We affirm the judgment below. <ol> <li>Background</strong></li> </ol> <p> Whether Steven Motors was entitled to summary judgment is a question of law we review de novo. <em>Croy v. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1632.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will continue to refer to the defendant as NVG. 2 No. 03 1632 environment based on gender. One of NVG's facilities is located in Muncie. Wyninger was hired under a ninety day written contract. No. 03 1632 3 At about the same time Wyninger was hired. Wyninger was the only production supervisor who was not salaried and who lacked benefits. The record is silent about the amount of on the job training provided to Brand. Department 5600 is divided into two sections: component preparation and an assembly line. Of particular importance to component 4 No. 03 1632 preparation is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011648.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion filed 10/10/02 is vacated PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 LISA L. Ocheltree was awarded a substantial amount in compensatory and punitive damages. Because we agree that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-9229.opn.html">CLOVER V. TOTAL SYS. SERVICES, INC. (10/6/1998, NO. 97-9229)<BR></A><BR> Contending that the evidence Clover adduced at trial was insufficient to support a claim of retaliatory discharge. Because we conclude that Clover's claim is legally insufficient to constitute a retaliatory discharge under Title VII. She was working as a microfiche clerk in the Support Services Division of TSYS. Her immediate supervisor was Annette Jones. Jones' supervisor was Allen Pettis. The entire Support Services Division was managed by Walter Miller.</P> <P> On March 22. Assistant Vice President of TSYS' Human Resource Management Division ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2351.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IMC Kalium Carlsbad Potash Company for fatal injuries suffered by Bain when a roll of industrial belting was knocked off of a flatbed and killed him. A federal jury sitting in diversity decided the accident was caused by a Philco employee working under the control of IMC at the time of the accident. Jeffrey Bain was employed by a third company at the time as a delivery driver. As part (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Philco's trial defense was threefold. It argued (1) Frintz was not negligent in knocking the belting onto Bain. (2) Bain was contributorily negligent. Frintz was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52C7E06D0044D65488256D24007F5BE8/$file/9956570.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a). Ingle was required to sign an arbitration agreement for Circuit City to consider her employment application. The district court entered an order denying the motion on the ground that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under Duffield v. Arguing primarily that its arbitration agreement is enforceable under Duffield2 and California contract law. 788 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (declining to rule on district court's alternative conclusion that arbitration agreement was invalid under Duffield because the court's conclusion under state contract law disposed of the appeal). 2 INGLE v. Because the 1998 Rules and Procedures were in effect at the time Ingle's civil rights claims arose. We examine these rules in analyzing whether this arbitration agreement is enforceable. 782 (9th Cir. 2002). [1] It is a settled principle of law that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-9524.wpd.html">NORTHERN COAL CO. V. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMP. PROGRAMS<BR></A><BR> Pickup met her burden of proving that pneumoconiosis was a substantially contributing cause or factor in her husband Charles Pickup's death. Pickup was regularly employed by Northern in or around a coal mine for a period of one year. Northern was the last company for which he worked. Was hospitalized. Was absent from work from April 19 through May 7. Was again hospitalized. Was absent from work through June 11. Pickup was again hospitalized with heart and other health problems. He was released to return to work on August 16. Was laid off and never worked for Northern again. He was hospitalized because of respiratory failure and persistent cardiac arrhythmia. Pickup's survivor claim were consolidated and referred to an ALJ for a hearing which was held on February 15. The ALJ issued an interlocutory order determining that Northern was the responsible operator liable for any benefits to be awarded. Pickup is entitled to survivor benefits and that Northern is the responsible operator. Pickup was entitled to disability benefits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1DFB6D5FB7488388825710E007B4810/$file/0335906.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Add as a new paragraph after footnote 1 (slip op. 82): There may be circumstances where an employer's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1590.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/023740P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was hired by ARKLA (Reliant Energy's [Reliant] predecessor) in 1990 as a Customer Service Representative in its Pine Bluff. ARKLA was later purchased by Reliant and reorganized. She was transferred to a position in Little Rock dealing with customer accounts that were in bankruptcy. Reliant contends Terry's position in Little Rock was eliminated when it decided to move all bankruptcy accounts to Shreveport. Because she was not offered a new position. Terry was terminated and received a lump sum severance package. Jones disputes such factual assertions and argues Terry's position was never eliminated. It was transferred and Terry could have retained the position had she been willing to relocate. Jones argues she was discriminated against because she was not given the option of accepting a severance package instead of relocating. As was Terry. 2 Jones sued for race discrimination in employment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Reliant moved for but was denied summary judgment because of unresolved fact issues relating to Jones's eligibility for severance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTczNDhfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7348_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the grounds that plaintiff's claims were untimely made and. We write to explain that plaintiff's claim for relief alleging salary discrimination was properly dismissed because Forsyth failed to establish genuine issues of triable fact with respect to it. Not because plaintiff's claim was time barred as the district court believed. The district court and the defendants were excused from their duty imposed by Rule 56.2 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. A party's status as Here either represented or pro se is critical under Rule 56.2. plaintiff commenced the instant litigation while represented by counsel. The district court and defendants were properly relieved of any duty to notify plaintiff under Rule 56.2. Facts Plaintiff is a black male whose country of origin is Grenada. Federation Employment Service is a New York not for profit mental health and social services agency. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4267_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Central States and the Disability Pension Central States is an employee pension benefit plan. Central States is a tax qualified. Not for profit trust fund that is administered by employer and employee trustees. Payment of plan benefits is governed by the Fund's Pension Plan Document particularly. (2) have ten years of Credited Service under the Plan. (2) after completion of 10 years of Credited Service (as defined in Section 3.03) if at least 35 weeks of contributions to the Pension Fund have been made or were required to have been made on behalf of the Participant during each of 5 calendar years of Covered Employment. Or at least 225 weeks of contributions have been made or were required to have been to the Pension Fund on his behalf. Shall be eligible for a Disability Pension Benefit under this Plan if he is entitled to disability benefits payable under Title II of the Social Security Act (as evidenced by a Certificate of Social Insurance Award) or if said Participant has sustained a disability which would satisfy the medical and physical requirements for such Certificate of Social Insurance Award where the Participant did not receive such Certificate for reasons unrelated to his medical and physical condition. (b) . . . (c) Disability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/982154.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before this court on an appeal from an order for summary judgment entered in favor of the employer in this employment discrimination action. We set forth the background of the matter at some length as the case is intensely fact driven. Jones's first assignment in the school district was in the science department at Northeast High School ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0909n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Had worked at Honda's Marysville plant since July 1994 as an at will employee. Where he and his co workers were responsible for preparing automobile engines for installation into vehicles. Honda moved him </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0087p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Charging that the City refused to hire him as a police officer because he is infected with the human immunodeficiency virus ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul26/03-20965-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. Three of which are at issue in this appeal.2 either party could terminate the agreement without First. Doctor was unable to work. This Agreement is automatically terminated upon . . . your disability lasting longer than three (3) calendar months that prevents you from performing the essential functions of your position with or without accommodation (unless the [Clinic] reviews the circumstances and grants written waiver of termination).3 The fourth ground for termination. Is not relevant to this appeal. She was injured in a non work related accident. Outlining the benefits that Doctor was entitled to receive under the Clinic's Family Medical Leave ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0792p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 634 (West 1985 & Supp. 1994).[fn2] The Armbruster Group consists of fourteen Unisys employees who were terminated in February 1991 in the course of a reduction in force (RIF) at Unisys. On appeal the Armbruster Group contends they produced evidence sufficient to show what is commonly referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-40774.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Summary judgment is appropriate when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-7063a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Susan L. With him on the brief were Robert J. In 1993 she was assigned to work as an administrative assistant in the Office of the Major at the D.C. In 1995 Larry Corbett was promoted to the position of Major. In August 3 1997 Corbett was promoted to Deputy Warden. In November Corbett's father died and Roebuck reluctantly agreed to have dinner with Corbett in order to console him. Told Corbett she was asleep. Sometime in January 1998 Corbett told Roebuck she should wear her hair up </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-9535.htm">97-9535 -- ARAMARK CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 09/22/1998<BR></A><BR> The Unions have intervened to support the Board's application for enforcement. <p> Aramark argues the Board is without jurisdiction to order Aramark to engage in collective bargaining because Aramark's operations fall within the political subdivision exemption of the Act. Aramark also argues the Board is without jurisdiction because under its government contracts. This court rejects Aramark's claim the Board erred in concluding it was not an exempt political subdivision. BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> Aramark is a Delaware corporation providing food services nationwide. These employees accordingly retained civil service status and the employees were in a public sector collective bargaining unit represented by Council 79. 1990 were Aramark employees and were not represented in the public sector collective bargaining unit. <p> The original contract was renewed yearly until June 30. Aramark was awarded a one year contract. This contract was renewable for additional one year periods. <p> In December 1996. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/70F45BCFFE7AD3A488256E91007CFF8F/$file/0356129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Certain termination payments to high level corporate officials are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1397.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Bonfils is a nonprofit corporation and Colorado's only community blood center. Couture learned that Bonfils had openings for (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. An individual whose primary duty was to perform all aspects of phlebotomy on donors wishing to give blood to Bonfils.(2) Bonfils hired Couture. Couture filled out a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7049DC22B6F8164F882570AB0074A65A/$file/0335906.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that CBS was entitled to assert an affirmative defense to liability based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Burlington Industries. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. He was promoted to Local Sales Manager in February of 2000. Both Hardage and Stauffer were supervised by Patty Dean. Who was in turn supervised by defendant Sparks. Hardage contends he was sexually harassed by Sparks on several occasions and subjected to retaliation after he rejected her advances. That he is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6EED38988019CC8088256B490062FC1E/$file/0035672.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Leisek was a full time employee of Brightwood from December 10. He was also a member of the Oregon National Guard (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-5439a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Jeffrey A. I. Background The facts relevant to this appeal are set out fully in the opinion of the district court on remand. This is what happened. From 1989 to 1992 Fogg was assigned to a task force that tracked fugitives. Twice during his time on the task force he was not given his regularly scheduled performance rating and he did not receive an expected promotion from the GS 12 to the GS 13 level. Fogg was eventually promoted to GS 13. By 1993 he had been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/043505P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was hired by the Department in September 1996 as a Corrections Officer I at the Jefferson City Correctional Center. Singletary voluntarily transferred to the Western Missouri Correctional Center (WMCC) in Cameron as a corrections officer and was soon promoted to the position of Investigator II.2 Initially. Was a white female. Taylor was responsible for Singletary's promotion to Investigator II as she requested his appointment to investigator. Sko Grimes was the Inspector General of the Jefferson City office. Captain Fasching was demoted and transferred to another prison facility. The Crossroads The primary responsibility of Investigators with the Department is to investigate allegations of impropriety or wrongdoing by other employees at the Department. 2 2 Correctional Center (CRCC). Black and Singletary were initially assigned to work at CRCC. The two were allowed to return to WMCC a few weeks later. Because Singletary and Black were on probation during their administrative leave. Taylor's request was granted and Black's and Singletary's probationary period was extended eighty nine days. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/477360948A891CF0882570EE0050F358/$file/0335906.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Add to end of footnote 1 (p. 14898): The dissent also analyzes the potential legal effect of EEOC enforcement guidance. This guidance was never cited by Hardage in any of his briefs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/02-1048.htm">02-1048 -- TRAN V. TRUSTEES OF THE STATE COLLEGES IN COLORADO -- 01/27/2004<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-9229.opn.html">CLOVER V. TOTAL SYS. SERVICES, INC. (10/6/1998, NO. 97-9229)<BR></A><BR> Contending that the evidence Clover adduced at trial was insufficient to support a claim of retaliatory discharge. Because we conclude that Clover's claim is legally insufficient to constitute a retaliatory discharge under Title VII. She was working as a microfiche clerk in the Support Services Division of TSYS. Her immediate supervisor was Annette Jones. Jones' supervisor was Allen Pettis. The entire Support Services Division was managed by Walter Miller.</P> <P> On March 22. Assistant Vice President of TSYS' Human Resource Management Division ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1451.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Some of which have been stipulated and incorporated in the district court's findings. Are not in dispute. Are recapitulated here. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 1989. When Taxpayer was sixty four (64) years old. In which Taxpayer was represented by the law firm of Ryan & White. According to which Young was to pay Taxpayer $350. 000 was allocated to Count III. This deduction was explained in 1 J. Hampden County 1988). 2 The Settlement Agreement also provided that (i) Taxpayer would be deemed to have retired from Young effective October 15. 5% of the Legal Fee was attributable to settlement of Count III. 000 Legal Fee) was deducted from the settlement proceeds attributable to Counts I and II. 000 received from Young in settlement of Counts I and II was gross income to Taxpayer. That the Legal Fee associated with Counts I and II were miscellaneous itemized deductions. Taxpayer was liable for the Alternative Minimum Tax ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov2000/003275.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of whom were employed by the United States Department of Justice. Filed his complaint in state court alleging that he and allfive individual defendants were employed by BOP at the Allenwood Federal Correctional Facility ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971572.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In which Judge Wilson joined. Judge Murnaghan heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 DEA v. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dea died and his estate was substituted as the appellant pursuant to Fed. Dea is entitled to judgment in his favor. The Commission's service is big business. It is this transfer which gave rise to this litigation. Dea's direct supervisor was Stephen Profilet. The Commission's General Manager was Richard Hocevar. Was not a white male. When Profilet learned that Miss Lucci was not on his short list for second interviews. Which was to promote a qualified minority candidate if one was available even though that candidate was not the best qualified for the job. 4 DEA v. Dea was transferred in April 1990 to a newly created position. Dea alleges that the district court committed clear error in determining 1) that he lacked both a good faith belief and a reasonable basis for a good faith belief that the Commissions's affirmative action policies were unlawful under Title VII. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/012631P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Union Pacific announced that carmen positions were being reduced in Des Moines and transferred to Melrose Park. Appellants learned that Union Pacific was seeking applicants for carmen in Des Moines. Appellants attempted to apply for the positions and were rebuffed. Claiming that they were discriminated against in the rehire process because they had been whistleblowers. Arguing 1) that appellants' claim was preempted by the Railway Labor Act. 2) that Iowa would not recognize a public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine in these circumstances. 4) that appellants' claim was barred because the separation agreement they signed included a release of any claims that arose out of their employment. Mere reference to a collective bargaining agreement is not sufficient to result in preemption. Claims that revolve around the conduct or motive of the parties generally are not preempted because they do not require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. Thus it is not preempted. Summary judgment is proper if the evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2117C3F27A15721988256E740074754D/$file/0216532.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because NIBCO has failed to demonstrate that the protective order was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. I. Factual and Procedural Background The plaintiffs in this dispute are twenty three Latina and Southeast Asian female immigrants once employed as production workers at NIBCO's factory in Fresno. California.1 All of the plaintiffs are of limited English proficiency. NIBCO allegedly responded with a The suit was originally brought by twenty five named plaintiffs as representatives of a similarly situated class. Some plaintiffs were demoted or transferred to undesirable job assignments. All plaintiffs were terminated in the period between July 30. NIBCO asked where she was married and where she was born. Although Rivera had specified that she was of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1192.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reverse and remand for further proceedings on one aspect of the discrimination claim Piercy's allegation that she was precluded from transferring to El Paso's male only jail. Piercy was hired as a Deputy Sheriff at the Colorado Springs jail (CJC). CJC was a general facility housing both male and female inmates. Metro Jail was a maximum security facility housing only male inmates. EPSO's practice was to classify prisoners based on the inmates' sex and security level. That ward is a large. Piercy claims that Alpha 3 is a more difficult ward to work than some of the other wards at CJC. Its inmates are not allowed in open areas after curfew. Piercy alleges work in Metro can be less stressful and safer because the inmate population is smaller and does not have direct access to staff at all times. Piercy also complains that certain job duties are restricted by the sex of an employee. Women are allowed to work in Alpha 3 by themselves. Male deputies in CJC are not allowed to pat down female prisoners. Female deputies have no such restrictions in the male wards. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/96-8972.man.html">FALANGA V. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA (8/19/1998, NO. 96-8972)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Georgia's prohibiting lawyers and their agents from soliciting professional employment from potential clients face to face and without invitation survives First Amendment commercial speech scrutiny as applied to appellees/cross appellants. Who are licensed to practice law in and members of the State Bar of Georgia. Most of their clients are poor and uneducated. Uninvited solicitation are constitutional as applied to Falanga and Chalker.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1351.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three cases are consolidated for purposes of this appeal. King now appeals the district court's: (1) determination that the noncompete provisions were enforceable. I PA is a professional consulting firm with offices in 20 countries and over 3400 employees. Although it is a New Jersey corporation with a human resources office in that state. PA is headquartered in Washington. King was a Senior Vice President ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-1195.htm">97-1195 -- BENNETT V. COORS BREWING CO. -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR> Even if the releases were invalid due to fraud. Appellants were among twenty eight employees in the security department at Coors. Both the EVSP and EERW were one time benefits packages offered to qualified employees who volunteered to terminate employment or retire during the election period. <p> Between August and October of 1993. Eligible employees in the security department were given the option of participating in the EVSP or the EERW. A decision that if approved would have eliminated all twenty eight positions in the department. Appellants were aware of rumors of potential outsourcing in the late summer of 1993. When they were considering whether to accept one of the benefit packages. <p> On September 20. Is brainstorming and evaluating all kinds of ideas. <p> Aplts' App. Coors announced that security was not going to be outsourced at the present time. Warder Bennett was paid a $9. Including your separation from employment . . . . <p> You agree that the legal rights and claims that you are giving up include. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-2343.htm">97-2343 -- PERRY V. WOODWARD -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR> Alleging she was discriminated against on the basis of her race and retaliated against because she opposed employment practices made unlawful by state and federal laws. 1981 because she was an at will employee. The district court also held that Perry was required to present evidence of intentional discrimination to prevail under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-7075a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Haig V. With him on the brief were Sylvia J. Circuit Judge: The chief question in this appeal is whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Since we conclude El Hadad was not a civil servant under the Act. El Hadad is an Egyptian citizen who earned a bachelor's degree in accounting in 1976 and began a career marked for many years by one promotion and positive job review after another. Where he was an auditor and supervising accountant in the cultural attaché's office and where he soon discovered that the cultural attaché. Others were involved in embezzling no less than $2 million in U.A.E. state funds. He was promoted and commended for his work while the cultural attaché and his accomplices were sacked. El Hadad was accused of financial impropriety in connection with the very embezzlement he had exposed. Why he was accused for the record and the district court's opinion make clear that the accusation was baseless to the core is a mystery. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research have directly impacted the case of Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/054474P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\9-7\05-4474 ARRALEH V. COUNTY OF RAMSEY OPN 8.31.WPD<BR></A><BR> I. Background Workforce Solutions ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1686p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Halpin was retired for the same reason. The question on this appeal is whether their charges under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-3007.htm">97-3007 -- ZINN V. MCKUNE -- 05/12/1998<BR></A><BR> Zinn was not an employee of the Department and dismissed her retaliation claims brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Kansas's common law </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1353p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Richard Homar was suspended without pay from his position as a police officer at East Stroudsburg University after his arrest on drug related charges. The criminal charges against Homar were eventually dismissed. Homar was nonetheless subsequently demoted to the position of groundskeeper. An employee is entitled to a hearing before any further action is taken to demote. The employee is entitled to know the evidence against him and be afforded the opportunity for a meaningful response. We conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether such a hearing was afforded here. I. Plaintiff Richard Homar was employed as a police officer at East Stroudsburg University ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2165.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Popeo</U> were on brief. <U>Cooley Manion Jones LLP</U> were on brief. The parting of ways of attorneys in a law firm is often difficult. That Coady was in breach of his contract. There was no longer any ambiguity or question of interpretation for the arbitrators to resolve. The latter two were issues of the application of the contract terms to the facts. Matters that were not within the arbitrators' limited authority under the contract. Conclude that it was in error as to the primary factor on which it relied.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0419p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This motion was denied. The legal issue presented whether the district court erred in denying the defendants' request for judgment as a matter of law is relatively simple. The answer is obtained. Only by conducting a close examination of the facts of the case in order to determine whether they are legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of intentional race discrimination. As will be explained. Page 2 jury's verdict and should have resulted in a judgment for the defendant. Is a holding company whose subsidiaries operate a number of concept restaurants throughout the country. One of these restaurants is Romano's Macaroni Grill in Worthington. Noble was permitted to introduce a significant amount of evidence at trial pertaining to Lawrence's allegedly discriminatory treatment of him and other minority employees. Noble testified that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/043049P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was hired as the Razorbacks' head The Honorable William R. The district court dismissed the Foundation and it is not a party on appeal. 22 1 men's basketball coach in 1985. The record is replete. Richardson was asked what he and Kentucky coach Tubby Smith discussed on the floor prior to tip off. Is that. We ain't going to have to worry about all that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/063094P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shockency were employed as officers in the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department. Fletcher informed Moore in July 2001 that he was being transferred out of his position as patrol lieutenant and would then be supervised by Nicholas O'Hara. Who was a political supporter and friend of the sheriff. She was transferred from her position as sergeant in charge of the midnight patrol shift to a position in the transportation unit with significantly less responsibility. She was also replaced as manager of the field training program. Moore was hired as a deputy sheriff for Ramsey County in 1981 and was promoted twice. Flaherty was a supporter of the sheriff. Sheriff Fletcher told him he was being transferred out of the patrol 2 division to lead the apprehension division and that thereafter he would work under the supervision of Inspector Nicholas O'Hara. Moore understood that he was being transferred because of his campaign for sheriff. Fletcher told him that his transfer was due to communication problems with his supervisor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug27/03-10753-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That their remaining claims were barred by res judicata. The claims in Davis I were based on alleged conduct by DART and Chief Rodriguez occurring between November 1998 and February 2001. The claims in Davis II were predicated on various alleged incidents of discrimination and retaliation occurring between March 2001 and Davis I (Davis & Johnson v. No. 3:01 CV 2595 M) was filed in state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case was removed to federal court. Johnson is still employed with DART as a corporal. Johnson's claims were dismissed February 1. Davis's claims were dismissed February 21. 2002. 4 3 2 1 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is an attorney's fee provision. 2 April 2002. The court held that Appellants failed to present a genuine issue of material fact about whether their nonselection for lieutenant promotions was based on either race discrimination or retaliation. Were precluded as res judicata by the judgment in Davis I. Forecloses relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior action. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep23/04-30233.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Is employed by the United States Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1868p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the order of the district court dismissing Ford's complaint even though we differ with the district court by finding Ford eligible to file suit under Title I of the ADA. I. The facts concerning the plaintiff's employment and her disability are not in dispute. Ford was an employee of Schering from 1975 until May of 1992. When she became disabled by virtue of a mental disorder and was unable to continue her employment. The plan mandated that benefits cease after two years if the disabled employee was not hospitalized. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review over the district court's order is plenary. Because the facts of this case are not in dispute. Whether Ford is even eligible to sue under the ADA. We will address Ford's claims under Titles I and III seriatim. The defendants' group insurance plan is a fringe benefit of employment at Schering. We must first ascertain whether Ford is eligible tofile suit under Title I. The question of standing is not at issue in this case. Which is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0390p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was notified by letter from SunDance dated February 26. 1999 that the company was compelled to reduce its workforce and that Salsbury's job would be terminated effective March 1. Neither Salsbury nor any other similarly situated employee was otherwise entitled to any amount of severance pay. Company will. Failure of the Releasor to comply with this agreement will result in the immediate repayment by Releasor of the total severance amount to Company as outlined in this paragraph. The parties acknowledge and agree that this severance pay exceeds any and all pay to which Releasor may have been entitled from the Company pursuant to law. . . . 3. Includes but is not limited to any claims which Releasor may have or may assert under federal or state law prohibiting employment discrimination and claims growing out of any legal restrictions on the rights of Company to terminate its employees. Releasor on behalf of herself and other releasors expressly agrees that she will not institute. Miscellaneous: The terms of this General Release are contractual and not mere recitals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053530p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in certifying a class when defendant asserted a defense unique to the claims of the class representative. We will vacate and remand. Beck did not have an outstanding loan with the Department of Education. Beck called Maximus to clarify she was not the debtor in question. She knew it was intended for the other Donna M. Beck and was sent to Inolex in error. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is intended to protect both debtors and non debtors from misleading and abusive debt collection practices. From </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1653_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was rehired in March 2000 as the Natural Resources Manager for the City's Department of Parks and Recreation. He filed an internal complaint against Salem because he believed there was inequity between his salary and the salaries of five other individuals in his section. Tomanovich alleged that the City was retaliating against him for engaging in protected activity. Meeting with Salem at which Salem was to review his performance. He stated that the reason for leaving that position 4 No. 05 1653 was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/05/02-3094.htm">02-3094 -- BENNETT V. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. -- 05/15/2003<BR></A><BR> 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Bennett is a resident of Lawrence. Bennett learned that Emerson was introducing a new line of power tools to be sold at Home Depot stores under the brand name RIDGID. Emerson was in negotiations with Home Depot to implement the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6AA2DACB7759D17488256DB7005BBA85/$file/0235158.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was awarded both the overtime wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages. Because this case was decided on summary judgment. We are required. As was the district court. Black was interested in the purchase of Alternative because she sought to obtain certain state issued. Which were otherwise difficult to obtain. Alternative was behind in its taxes. The other problem was that Alternative. Was not yet certified as a Medicare provider. This second complication was remedied when Alternative's Medicare certification became effective on February 22. Alternative alone would have had difficulty passing the survey because Alternative had very few </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/024190p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Monaco was born on March 9. United States Life promoted him in 1979 to regional group manager in which position he was responsible for opening the New Jersey regional office in Chatham and oversaw the sales representatives and clerical staff in that office. Was Monaco's immediate supervisor. Who was retiring. AGAC determined that its medical insurance line of business was incurring large losses. He was age 53. Who was vice president of the Eastern Region. Who was vice president of the Western Region. When Leary informed Monaco that AGAC was laying him off effective June 30. He explained that it was doing so because it was eliminating his position of vice president for the Eastern Region as it was consolidating its Eastern and W estern Regions under Shaw's control. Who was born on April 26. Is approximately two years younger than Monaco. McKellar worked out of the New Jersey office and was responsible for national sales and other senior management duties in addition to overseeing the Eastern Regional sales offices. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-4253.htm">01-4253 -- DAVIDSON V. AMERICA ONLINE INC. -- 07/30/2003<BR></A><BR> Who is deaf. We affirm the district court's decision that one of plaintiff's claims of discrimination is time barred. Summary judgment is appropriate only </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1657.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2129.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She signed an employment application containing the following language: (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 32.1. <hr> I understand that employment at AOL is on an at will basis. The offer letter given to her by AOL and signed by her on December 10 stated that her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-3069.htm">03-3069 -- ANNETT V. UNIVERSTIY OF KANSAS -- 06/15/2004<BR></A><BR> She was denied tenure in March 1998. Her employment was terminated at the end of the 1998 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-1296.html">WILCOTT V. MATLACK, INC.<BR></A><BR> After the case was removed to federal court. Three federal claims were then tried to the court: (1) denial of short and long term disability benefits due under defendants' ERISA plan. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. I Most of the pertinent facts are undisputed. Defendant Erwin (who was defendant Matlack. (Plaintiff alleges Erwin also assured him at this time that he would have his job for as long as he wished.). Plaintiff was notified that he had been terminated as a part of a general reduction in force. Plaintiff applied for and was awarded social security disability benefits retroactive to May 1990. That he did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/93-1031.html">BERRY V. STEVINSON CHEVROLET<BR></A><BR> Who are African Americans. The district court concluded that defendants were liable for back pay to Mr. Carter was originally employed at Toyota West. He was transferred to Mark Toyota in 1985 and discharged in July 1987. The district court found that the notice was mailed to Mr. Carter's action was time barred. Carter contends that the 1991 Civil Rights Act provision for a jury trial applies retroactively and that a jury should therefore have decided whether he filed his claim in a timely manner. Berry expressed his desire for a promotion and was qualified to receive one. Berry's promotion to sales manager would have created a new contract. Stevinson was not personally liable on Mr. Reynolds was new car sales manager at defendant Stevinson Toyota (Toyota West). Reynolds was employed as sales manager. Toyota West was notified that it had earned a sales bonus from Toyota Motor Sales. Both of whom were sales managers at Toyota West. Szekula that he was contemplating filing an EEOC race discrimination complaint against Toyota West. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/96-8972.man.html">FALANGA V. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA (8/19/1998, NO. 96-8972)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Georgia's prohibiting lawyers and their agents from soliciting professional employment from potential clients face to face and without invitation survives First Amendment commercial speech scrutiny as applied to appellees/cross appellants. Who are licensed to practice law in and members of the State Bar of Georgia. Most of their clients are poor and uneducated. Uninvited solicitation are constitutional as applied to Falanga and Chalker.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002202.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He returned to work in February 1998 with light duty restrictions and in April 1998 was placed in a position in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1642.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associates</SPAN> was on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044106np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: William Brokenbaugh is an African American male who worked for Defendant Exel Logistics ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2156.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Willard & Redding was on brief for appellant. Gordon and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellee. Ericson represented that Frankina would have a job for life unless he committed a criminal act against the Bank. Frankina became aware of no employee who was terminated except for criminal conduct. 119 positions were eliminated. Determined that it was necessary to eliminate two of the seven positions in the Control Unit to eliminate functional redundancy. That Frankina was the least qualified employee in the Unit. Was least well suited to perform the work duties in the reconfigured organization. Four of the five Control Unit employees who were retained were younger than Frankina.1 On May 19. Demone told Frankina that job applications from laid off employees would be given preferential treatment in 1One retained employee was forty nine years old at the time of the reorganization. Two were forty one. One was thirty seven. One was thirty one. Frankina suggests that the forty nine year old was not similarly situated because he served in a managerial capacity. 4 the Bank's hiring process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/962395P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DSS director Stangler found that hiring practices at the DFS office were flawed. That caseworker case approval and probation were inconsistently applied. That two of the six allegations of retaliation against appellant were substantiated. Concluding that the atmosphere in appellant's section was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1334.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. We conclude that Nivette's resignation does not moot the issue of the District's potential liability for discrimination in refusing to rehire Nivette because it is undisputed that Nivette resigned only after notification that she would not be rehired. We conclude that the District was entitled to summary judgment on the failure to rehire claim because Nivette could not produce evidence tending to show that age was a determinative factor in her supervisor's decision not to rehire her or that the reasons given for not rehiring her were pretextual. Which is based on a conversation during which the District's superintendent informed a prospective employer that Nivette had filed a discrimination claim against the District. We hold that no reasonable jury (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. It is not enough that the nonmovant's evidence be merely colorable or anything short of significantly probative. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-3289.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Whether the Army was entitled to summary judgment is a question of law we review de novo. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0052n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> D. Michelle Bergman alleges that she was terminated by her employer because of her pregnancy. Bergman was in charge of infants aged four to six months. Bergman was an at will employee. Bergman learned that she was pregnant with her second child. Bergman's pregnancy immediately was plagued by complications. Approximately two weeks after she discovered she was pregnant. Bergman was ineligible for BHS's Personal Leave of Absence (LOA).1 A BHS grants employees leaves of absence for their serious health conditions as well as for their family members' serious health conditions. The family medical leave is granted pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 2619. The eligibility requirements are set by the Family Medical Leave Act. The personal illness leave is granted pursuant to a BHS policy. The sole eligibility requirement is employment with BHS for at least three months. Employees who have worked for BHS for three months can take up to three months of leave. Their jobs are not necessarily guaranteed for the duration of their leaves. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/964177P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kneibert became the editor and was ultimately accountable for delegating responsibilities within the news department. Shields had overall responsibility for all departments and was charged with ensuring that the newspaper was profitable through increased circulation. Shields's concerns included the newspaper's editorial quality and the existence of a competing weekly newspaper as indications that Kneibert was not performing his job properly. Gallagher concluded that the newspaper was outdated. (2) he was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/052142P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that Baum did not have a contract for a term of years. Baum was then employed by a competitor. Helget said he would have Baum's meeting notes typed up and signed. Baum's salary is $39. It also provides that Baum is due a $2. HGP is to pay for or buy out the lease if Baum is discharged </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011572.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cox was a paid. Is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021638.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 1999 his employment was unlawfully terminated because of a disability (paranoid schizophrenia). There is no dispute that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into by the company and the I.U.E. The only question is whether the arbitration provisions of the CBA were sufficiently clear to meet the standards required to constitute a waiver of Singletary's right to litigate in a judicial forum his statutory claims of employment discrimination. We have concluded that a collective bargaining agreement can achieve </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Not as large of a raise as she would have received had her evaluation been more favorable. We conclude that this was error. Gillis is a probation officer with the Dublin. Gillis contends that this was error. We are required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We therefore recite the facts in the light most favorable to Gillis. 2 2 Gillis is the only probation officer in the small town of Soperton. Gillis's primary job responsibility is to supervise probationers for the state court in Treutlen. Probation officers are evaluated annually. Their evaluations are prepared on a State form called a Performance Management Form. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-4090.htm">01-4090 -- PETERSEN V. UTAH DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS -- 08/22/2002<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3412.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Appellant Nancy Metzler ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/93C3769C26C92A54882570E4005571E5/$file/0356412.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D12BAFD84138E886882572790082A486/$file/0416688.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery LLP. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e). Plaintiffs alleged that women employed in Wal Mart stores: (1) are paid less than men in comparable positions. That the policies and practices underlying this discriminatory treatment are consistent throughout WalMart stores. That this discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked in Wal Mart stores. Which is estimated to include more than 1.5 million women. Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of women who have been subjected to WalMart's allegedly discriminatory pay and promotions policies. Who have been or may be subjected to Wal Mart's challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices. While the class size was large. The issues were not unusual. INC. 1341 court clearly stated that its decision would be limited to procedural questions because an adjudication of the merits was not appropriate at that early stage. The court's finding was mixed. The court denied Plaintiffs' request for certification with respect to backpay because data relating to challenged promotions were not available for all class members. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1100p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This matter is before this court on appeal by Delaware County Community College from orders denying its motions for judgment as a matter of law and on a cross appeal by Frank McDaniels from orders dismissing the trustees of the college as defendants and denying him a new trial on non economic damages. The student later was identified as John Federici. The district court explained that there was an issue of material fact as to whether McDaniels received notice of the charges or the purpose of the pretermination meeting before the meeting and whether he was informed of the specific accusations during the meeting. The court determined that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether there had been a procedural due process violation. The court noted that actions taken after the pretermination meeting might show that McDaniels was aware of the specific charges and that he had an opportunity to respond to them. McDaniels elected to have the court declare a mistrial. Which was also the close of all of the evidence as the college did not call any witnesses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031637.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted summary judgment because it found that Rohan was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D045400FB5305A1882571E7007FAA71/$file/0316702.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: May a state department of corrections be held liable for prison officials' failure to correct a hostile work environment that is the result of male prisoners' sexual harassment of female guards? Freitag alleged that the CDCR and Pelican Bay were delinquent in addressing the sexually hostile environment created by prison inmates particularly in confronting the pervasive practice at Pelican Bay of inmate exhibitionist masturbation directed at female officers and that she was retaliated against and ultimately terminated due to her repeated complaints regarding the problem. Inmates in the SHU are subjected to harsher and more restrictive conditions than exist at any other prison in the state system.1 On September 12. Freitag was working a relief shift in the SHU control tower when she witnessed Inmate X standing naked in the exercise yard masturbating. Freitag was instructed by her direct supervisor not to document the incident. Which are placed in inmates' central files but ordinarily do not form the basis for disciplinary action. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051222pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006 This case was originally argued on October 20. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. Before the opinions were filed. Judges Cowen and Greenberg were selected at random to replace Judges Becker and Nygaard. 3 Phillip J. The resolution of which would limit a religious institution's right to choose who will perform particular spiritual functions. 4 Petruska's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. Are barred by the ministerial exception insofar as they implicate a church's right to select its ministers under the Free Exercise Clause. They are not precluded by the exception. We will affirm the District Court's order dismissing Petruska's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. We will remand her breach of contract claim for further consideration by the District Court. Gannon's motion to dismiss was framed in the alternative. Although we conclude that it is most properly construed as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We note that the standard is the same when considering a facial attack under Rule 12(b)(1) or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/001545P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that payments to tenured faculty under the program were not wages within the FICA definition of wages but that payments to high level administrators under the program were wages subject to FICA taxation. The material facts are generally undisputed in this case disposed of on cross motions for summary judgment. Participation in the program was voluntary by both partiesneither the employee nor NDSU could force the other to enter into an Early Retirement Agreement. The payment was capped at 100% of the employee's most recent annual salary. The prospective retiree was not automatically entitled to the full amount. Various factors were considered in setting the The Honorable Rodney S. North Dakota State University also sought refunds for FICA taxes based on wages paid to teachers and trainees who were residents of other countries and were working at the university on J 1 work Visas. These were not the only factors considered during the negotiations. There was no restriction on the factors that could be considered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/02-1010.htm">02-1010 -- VOLTZ V. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES INC. -- 01/22/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981128.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The case was removed to district court. Hoffmann is an Engineering Technician at the VAMC. As are Refenes and Crouch. Generally alleging that Hoffmann was acting erratically. That he was unpleasant to work with. He alleged that certain written and oral statements made by Refenes and Crouch were defamatory.* The statements of which Hoffmann complains can be summarized as follows: 1. They were acting within the scope of their employment. (3) Hoffmann </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0979n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She knew that she was not cataloguing materials as quickly as her coworkers. James' 1999 performance evaluation noted that she was cataloguing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5043.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge.(2) Plaintiff Appellant Sherry Hamby was employed by Associated Centers for Therapy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972584.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this appeal is whether a labor union that represents federal employees may constitute a labor organization as that term is defined in the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Because the ADA provides that the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022284.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 FOREMAN v. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Foreman is a deputy attorney for the City of Norfolk. He filed the present action after he was demoted to a lesser position in the City Attorney's Office following the release of an investigative report (the Report) prepared by Charles Griffith. Bernard Pishko was Foreman's boss at the City Attorney's Office. Which media outlets in turn quoted portions of the Report that Foreman claims are defamatory. The primary accusation against Foreman in the Report was that he engaged in unethical favoritism of Tidewater Towing. Foreman alleges that the accusation is false and damaged his professional reputation. At issue in the present appeal are the following three claims by Foreman: (1) a property interest claim. The action was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3122.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Martha B. Because the Board correctly concluded that Thompson was neither an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-6054.man.html">PULLIAM V. TALLAPOOSA COUNTY JAIL (8/12/1999, NO. 98-6054)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff was terminated.</P> <P> Plaintiff brought the instant action against Tallapoosa County (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-6054.man.html">PULLIAM V. TALLAPOOSA COUNTY JAIL (8/12/1999, NO. 98-6054)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff was terminated.</P> <P> Plaintiff brought the instant action against Tallapoosa County (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-5200a.pdf">O:\2006-2007 TERM\09-15-06 SITTING\05-5200 MAJANO V. US\OPINION\MAJANO.OPINION.11.16.06-FINAL.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Federal employees are immune from state tort lawsuits for money damages if their tortious conduct occurred while they were acting within the scope of their employment. The United States is the only proper defendant against such actions. Majano's sole hope of success requires that she show Kim's assault was not within the scope of her employment. The issue presented by this appeal is whether the district court in granting summary judgment against Majano correctly concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Kim's assault was outside the scope of her employment. I. Many of the facts recounted here are disputed by the Government. Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment against appellant Majano. We must view the evidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-7089a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was R. With her on the brief was Anita Barondes. What should a court do when confronted with a statutory claim and an arbitration agreement that is unenforceable as written. The arbitration clause was unenforceable as written because it precluded an award of punitive damages. Which are available under the D.C. statute. The fact that the agreement is otherwise valid and enforceable. Providing that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/014415p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal by an employee from a district court order compelling arbitration of her employment discrimination claims requires us to determine whether the entire arbitration agreement between her and her employer was vitiated when the court voided the agreement's attorney's fees and arbitration costs provision for offending federal statutes and ruling case law. I. At tension here are two important expressions of public policy. In deciding whether an arbitration agreement is valid under the FAA. Pennsylvania courts have held that if an essential term of a contract is deemed illegal. 560 561 (Pa. 1951) (stating that a bilateral bargain containing both a legal and illegal promise may not be enforced when the illegal portion is the essential consideration for the bargain). We believe that the make orbreak task before us is to decide whether the stricken portion of the employment arbitration agreement constitutes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/062107P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Morgan was promoted several times. Robert Bagby (Bagby) was appointed A.G. The stock market industry was suffering and undergoing significant changes. Several large corporations were investigated for corrupt business practices. The first phase of the RIF was a voluntary severance incentive plan (VSIP). Who were age 50 or older and had at least fifteen years of service. Morgan was not among the individuals selected for termination under this program. Complained Morgan seldom was in his own office. Was difficult to reach by telephone. He regularly fielded questions from Morgan's branch managers about issues Altenberger did not have the authority to The record indicates Morgan received at least three letters from his former supervisor. Arguing they were written several years ago by an individual who was not Morgan's supervisor at the time of his demotion. Sisler's letters demonstrate the concerns related to Morgan's inaccessibility and work attendance were not unprecedented or of recent origin. 32 handle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/01-8082.htm">01-8082 -- BROWN V. LABARGE -- 03/01/2004<BR></A><BR> </strong> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971372.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vacated the award of punitive damages in favor of each on the ground that the record contained insufficient evidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2375.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zimmerman</U> was on brief. Singal</U> was on brief. Concluding that under Maine law Gonzalez was not acting within the scope of employment when he attacked Nichols. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEwNjktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1069-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although his version is controverted in some respects by that provided by Home Depot. We do so because we are constrained. Baker was hired as a full time sales associate in the floor and wall department of Home Depot's store in Auburn. On any day of the week that his services were required. Baker was entitled to all the employee benefits provided by Home Depot. Baker came to understand that Sunday is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0046p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that she was terminated from her position as a jailer at the Loudon County Sheriff's Department in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights of political and intimate association. Loudon County and Guider respond that even if Sowards's First Amendment rights were violated. Political affiliation is a proper consideration for the position of a jailer under the Elrod/Branti exception. They claim that Guider is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. A genuine issue of material fact exists whether Guider's action was substantially motivated by this activity. Because political considerations are not appropriate for the position of a jailer. Guider is not entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. She was terminated allegedly because she had missed an outstanding warrant. Ricker was arrested on a DUI charge and brought to the LCSD jail. Sowards was working on that date and was responsible for checking for any outstanding warrants on persons brought into the facility. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0232n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was employed by the U.S. The machine is operated by a crew of employees who rotated among the three different tasks. The claim was denied. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4E351F7D3E9B704988256CB7005B1EEA/$file/0215393.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding as a matter of law that Dyack was not a member of the CNMI civil service and therefore not entitled to notice of termination or an opportunity to respond. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Dyack is a physician and a citizen of Canada.1 In October 1999. The contract was entitled an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C04/04-30233.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Is employed by the United States Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3124.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Elizabeth C. Cheney did not receive the statutory procedural protections to which he was entitled before his suspension. Cheney is entitled by reason of his improper suspension. Cheney was a GS 14 criminal investigator and the Resident Agent in Charge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972897.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wideman's contention that the district court erred in granting Wal Mart a judgment on her hostile environment and constructive discharge claims is meritless. The judgment with respect to those claims is affirmed without further discussion. Are required to view Honorable Richard Mills. (3) the adverse action was causally related to the protected expression. The parties disagree over whether a plaintiff who alleges she was retaliated against for filing an EEOC charge of discrimination must also establish. Wideman argues that a plaintiff who alleges she suffered retaliation for filing an EEOC charge is pursuing her claim under the participation clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a). That protection from retaliation under the participation clause is not conditioned by a good faith. Notes that we have held that retaliation claims brought under the opposition clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a) are conditioned by a good faith. Holding that Wideman did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation because her EEOC charge of discrimination was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-3376.htm">02-3376 -- MEINERS V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CHANCELLOR ROBERT HEMENWAY -- 02/24/2004<BR></A><BR> Alleging that she was denied tenure in retaliation for her filing of discrimination complaints. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/943823P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anderson is their supervisor. Certifying that Anderson was a federal employee acting within the scope of his employment at the time that the offending picture was posted. His conduct was not within the scope of his employment. The Court held that a federal employee was immune from a state tort action only if the employee was acting within the scope of his employment and the conduct that caused harm was discretionary. Providing that an action against the United States is the only remedy for injuries caused by federal government employees acting within the scope of their 2 employment. Regardless of whether the conduct in question was discretionary. After a federal employee is sued in a state court. The Attorney General reviews the case to determine if the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when the allegedly harmful conduct occurred. If the Attorney General certifies that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment. The case is removed to federal court. The district court must determine whether the defendant was acting within the scope of his employment when the conduct in question occurred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkzNDhfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9348_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court ruled that plaintiff's inability to show defendants' awareness of her age relative to that of a younger worker to whom plaintiff's responsibilities were transferred precluded her establishment of a prima facie case of age 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 discrimination. Plaintiff was required to adduce some evidence indicating that. Defendants knew that plaintiff was significantly older than another employee to whom her duties were transferred. Various work functions common to both the acquired and acquiring companies were consolidated. Was among the persons so terminated. She submits that defendants' decision was impermissibly based on her age. Woodman was employed in various advertising sales positions by television stations affiliated with Chris Craft. She was named the station's Local Sales Manager. She was promoted to 1 2 3 1 Because Woodman's age discrimination claims under state and city law are subject to the same analysis as her ADEA claim. The position she held when she was terminated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F694EDF2043DBF088256EC90057655B/$file/0315193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fonseca alleges that he was subjected to discrimination based on his race and ethnicity beginning in 1999. Soon after Don Peterson was hired as the manager of the Sysco warehouse where Fonseca is employed. While Fonseca is the only Guatemalan working at the warehouse. There are other Hispanic employees. Fonseca alleges that white workers consistently have received better treatment than Hispanics in similar circumstances. Fonseca learned that his mother was dying. Fonseca was called back to work only four days after he left. The suspension was reduced to a disciplinary </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2166.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Medina was not discriminated against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/041443P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kline have been employed by the Kansas City. An understanding of certain aspects of the discrimination claims litigated in the first suit is necessary to this appeal. We held that the district court erred by admitting only evidence recited in the EEOC complaint because all of the work circumstances were relevant to the hostile environment claim. That the error was harmless in that instance. Kline prevailed on the issue of liability with regard to her hostile environment claim in Kline I so the clothing and facilities evidence could only have made an impact on the issue of damages. We concluded that there was no harm because the clothing and facilities conditions </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043023np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In addition to a claim that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. I Tucker's § 1981 employment discrimination claim is analyzed under the same framework as sexual discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This framework was set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. This is done by showing (1) that he is a member of a protected class. (2) that he was subject to an adverse employment action. (3) that similarly situated members of other racial classes were treated more favorably. Our Court has defined an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/026031P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND The material facts are not in dispute. The debtors' primary business is the manufacturing of cutting and welding equipment. The Estates shall reimburse the Indemnified Parties for any legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by them in respect thereof at the time such expenses are incurred. Damage or liability which is finally judicially determined to have resulted from the willful misconduct or gross negligence of any Indemnified Party. 3 To resolve numerous objections4 from the U.S. Contribution or reimbursement therefore are approved by the Court. (b) The Debtors shall have no obligation to indemnify Houlihan Lokey. For any claim or expense that is either (i) judicially determined (the determination having become final) to have arisen solely from Houlihan Lokey's gross negligence. Stating it was excessive. Stated that the portion of the indemnification provision that releases Houlihan for any liability arising from its engagement other than that judicially determined to be willful misconduct or gross negligence is inappropriate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034546p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Glanzman's primary argument is that the district court erred in determining that she had failed to present sufficient direct evidence of age discrimination. Shifting to it the burden of showing that they would have terminated her employment even if they had not considered her age. (2) presented sufficient evidence to negate Metropolitan's evidence in support of its contention that it would have fired her. (3) was harmed by the allegedly 4 retaliatory conduct of Metropolitan.1 Fries argues that the district court erred in determining that he failed to produce sufficient evidence that Metropolitan retaliated against him because his name appeared on a witness list in a proceeding initiated by Glanzman against Metropolitan before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1FA7FE5E16B9AA2688256FB8005A017A/$file/0372528.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petition for review of the determination of the Benefits Review Board (BRB) that claimant Robert Castro is entitled to total disability compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. General Construction also claims that the method the administrative law judge (ALJ) used to calculate Castro's average weekly wage was incorrect and that the OWCP violated Gen 2402 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. v. The ALJ's wage calculation was correct under Ninth Circuit law. The BRB must accept the ALJ's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3). We </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-12757.man.html">PENNINGTON V. CITY OF HUNTSVILLE (8/17/2001, NO. 00-12757)<BR></A><BR> Pennington was transferred to the Westside Center as a Recreational Aide.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0381p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision confronts the procedural ramifications attendant to a Westfall Act certification that denies the occurrence of any injury causing event and the jurisdictional consequences of a denial of substitution under the Act issues that have split the circuits. Ascribing instead to the view adopted by a majority of the other circuits to have considered these issues. Substitute itself as defendant in place of the targeted federal employee: Upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose. Osborn's inducement of her discharge was extraneous to the proper scope of his duties. Rather than consideration of the question it thought it should be reviewing whether the content of the communications between LBLA and Haley was within his scope of employment. A It is well settled that the Attorney General's scope of employment certification may be judicially reviewed a plaintiff may challenge the scope certification and expect resolution of that issue by the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A83BC2AA9FFB8215882571CA007FEF45/$file/0416705.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue here is whether the district court properly disPlaintiffs raised additional issues. Which we have addressed in a separate memorandum disposition. Filed this date. 2 Plaintiffs could have. The purpose of the statute is. Title II requires state and local governments to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to public services. At the time that the ADA was passed. Three are relevant here. Id. § 12940(a). [2] The DPA and the Unruh Act both focus on ensuring that persons with disabilities have equal access to public businesses. COUNTY OF BUTTE Individuals with disabilities or medical conditions have the same right as the general public to the full and free use of the streets. Other places to which the general public is invited. COUNTY OF BUTTE 9703 The Unruh Act provides in pertinent part: All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal. Or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations. Code § 51(b). [3] The California courts have. Holding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> End page heading. > <div align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-2897.man.html">WIDEMAN V. WAL-MART STORES, INC. (5/27/1998, NO. 97-2897)<BR></A><BR> Wideman's contention that the district court erred in granting Wal Mart a judgment on her hostile environment and constructive discharge claims is meritless. The judgment with respect to those claims is affirmed without further discussion. Are required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. <EM>See Walls v. (3) the adverse action was causally related to the protected expression. <EM>See. The parties disagree over whether a plaintiff who alleges she was retaliated against for filing an EEOC charge of discrimination must also establish. Wideman argues that a plaintiff who alleges she suffered retaliation for filing an EEOC charge is pursuing her claim under the participation clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a). That protection from retaliation under the participation clause is not conditioned by a good faith. Notes that we have held that retaliation claims brought under the opposition clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a) are conditioned by a good faith. Holding that Wideman did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation because her EEOC charge of discrimination was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/001589.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In these proceedings Hydro contests the finding of liability while Doyle contends that the ARB should have awarded him a tax enhancement to compensate for the burden of receiving a lump sum award of back pay. We will grant Hydro's petition. We will dismiss Doyle's petition as moot. Factual History The factual synopsis we detail below is not controverted. The pay rate for this job was to be modest. Their clients for whom the investigation is being performed and any organization listed above furnishing or receiving any information pertaining to me from any and all liability or claim as results [sic] of furnishing or receiving such information pursuant to this authorization. Hydro Nuclear Services is authorized to utilize the information it obtains for the purpose of evaluation. Doyle's concern largely was attributable to his belief that his former employer. Implicitly was included in the release. [Hydro] in requiring all employees including[Doyle] to sign its release was exercising an essential step in performing its duty of responsible investigation and screening of employees. 6 JA at 10 11. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001591.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IT IS ORDERED that the motion to publish is granted. Section 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-5045.opa.html">MCMILLIAN V. FDIC<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. This appeal raises two FIRREA issues: (1) whether FIRREA bars the enforcement of severance pay agreements because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945045.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal raises two FIRREA issues: (1) whether FIRREA bars the enforcement of severance pay agreements because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sample was on brief for appellant. The question before us is whether the decision of the Penobscot Nation Tribal Council to terminate the employment of a community health nurse constitutes an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-5045.opa.html">MCMILLIAN V. FDIC<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. This appeal raises two FIRREA issues: (1) whether FIRREA bars the enforcement of severance pay agreements because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/983115P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Brower was hired by Environmental Services Company in August 1994. She was interviewed for a level 19 position in Omaha but was not selected. Applications were not taken for the St. Individuals who had previously applied and been interviewed for level 19 positions were included in the applicant pool. She was neither interviewed nor selected for the level 23 position. Smith was either unable or unwilling to answer some of Brower's questions. She indicated that she believed her only remaining alternative was to seek </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-2102.htm">97-2102 -- ANAEME V. DIAGNOSTEK INC. -- 01/06/1999<BR></A><BR> The jury found that Plaintiff's race was not a determining factor in Defendants' failure to hire him. Plaintiff moved for a new trial on three grounds: (1) the jury's verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. (3) the judgment was a miscarriage of justice. 1291. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0474p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claims that he was wrongfully discharged from his position as a police officer for the Township. The injury was diagnosed as a herniated disc. Which was approved later that month. That he was suspended from active duty. Asserting that Young was no longer disabled as a result of a work related injury. He was subpoenaed on several occasions to provide court testimony about matters that he had witnessed before his injury. The last such subpoena in the record is dated in February of 1994. Young was maintained as an employee on the Township records. The Township's police officers are required to report such incidents. The magistrate judge determined that Young </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1306p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The underlying dispute concerns a union election that was held in 1993 to determine whether certain Cavert employees should be represented by the Union. Cavert challenges the Board's ruling that an employee who had been out of work for five months due to an injury was eligible to vote. That the standard was improperly applied in this case. Election and Aftermath Cavert Acquisition Company[fn1] is a manufacturer of steel wire. The Union challenged the ballots of two employees on the ground that they were supervisors and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit. The three contested ballots were therefore potentially determinative of the election's outcome. A hearing was held before a hearing officer concerning the challenged ballots. The revised tally was 17 in favor of the Union and 16 opposed. Claiming that the certification was invalid because of the inclusion of Morris's vote. The challenges as to the supervisors are no longer in dispute. Morris was examined by a doctor who gave him a handwritten note stating that he would be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1060p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To prove both that his employer's reasons for terminating him were false and that the real reason for termination was discrimination. Have established that this prediction was inaccurate. Because the district court's legal standard was thus in error. The principal question for our review is whether under the proper standard. The defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Did he also provide sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could determine that either his employer's reasons for terminating him were false or that discrimination was more than likely the motivating factor? Therefore we will reverse. Reed Waldron was employed at Waber from 1972 through 1986. Was laid off in 1986 because of a reorganization. He was rehired by Waber as a consultant. He was 61 years old when he was rehired. Was having difficulties. Hammill was given the electronic marketing manager's position. Waldron was named electrical marketing manager. The positions were reconsolidated. Waldron was given the reconsolidated position of industrial market manager. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/01-1471.htm">01-1471 -- ABUAN V. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. -- 12/30/2003<BR></A><BR> Who is of Hispanic and Filipino heritage and was over fifty years of age at the time of the alleged discriminatory acts. Asserted that he was subjected to national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. The case was tried to a jury. The record reflects the following facts. <p> Level 3 is a telecommunications company that began operations around the time Mr. He was one of the first people hired at Level 3. He was given the position of team leader and project manager directing the development of the NetExpert network management system. His compensation was determined by his band level. Abuan was placed in Band 5. His initial salary was $100. He was also eligible for a bonus of twenty five percent upon achievement of target goals and stock options that would become valuable only if Level 3's capital stock outperformed Standard &. Abuan's work was exemplary. The project was scheduled for completion in September 1998. Abuan presented evidence that all goals were met on schedule. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962736.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Elliott was injured while working for the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company (the Company) when he dropped a laminated steel plate on his left foot. Elliott complained that his foot was swelling and left work. Stiles also referred Elliott to a vocational rehabilitation counselor who 2 determined that Elliott was of low to average intelligence and capable of performing sedentary and light duty supply work jobs. Elliott was additionally seen by an orthopedist. He was excused and told to return on September 23. The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision without an opinion.1 Since there is no Board opinion for this Court to review. All appeals to the Board pending for one year or more and relating to claims under the Act were deemed affirmed. Was affirmed by the Board on September 12. If a claimant is able to show that he is unable to do his regular or usual work. Was unable to secure a suitable position. The Company was made aware of Elliott's work restrictions on September 17. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982035.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was general manager (GM) of HRC. Argues that she created a genuine issue of material fact on her Title VII claim when she put forth evidence that demonstrated that some of her superiors on the HRC Board of Trustees (Board) favored her termination because they lamented the loss of a particular greens superintendent who had publicly stated that he was not pleased to work for a woman. She alleges that the district court based its summary judgment ruling on an affirmative defense that was improperly raised. Because we determine that summary judgment was appropriate. Are expressed in the light most favorable to her as the nonmoving party. 255 (1986) (stating that an appellate court reviewing a grant of summary judgment is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non moving party and must draw all reasonable inferences therefrom). Brinkley was promoted to the position of GM of HRC. Board members asked the staff whether anyone would have difficulty working with Brinkley in that capacity. Where she was the owner/manager/treasurer of a restaurant in Salisbury from 1976 1989 and reported a salary of $30. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/992239P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Spears was transferred to the Jefferson City Correctional Center (JCCC) in August of 1992 and shortly thereafter she resigned from the Department. The court reasoned that Spears was barred from asserting as acts of retaliation the conduct alleged in her 1992 EEOC charge because she had not timely filed suit on these acts and that the other retaliatory acts alleged by Spears the lowering of her performance evaluation and her transfer to JCCC did not constitute 2 adverse employment action. Summary judgment is proper where the evidence. Indicates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. An adverse employment action is a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage. We agree that Spears is barred from asserting 3 as adverse employment action the retaliatory acts that she alleged in her 1992 EEOC charge. It is undisputed that Spears did not file suit within 90 days of receiving a right to sue letter on her 1992 charge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU1NTEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5551-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to assess whether various officials of Albany County violated the First Amendment rights of a corrections officer by retaliating against him on the basis of his speech. Hoyt was granted a fulltime leave to fulfill his union responsibilities. Administrative proceedings or other labor matters in which Albany County is a party. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053204p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's decision. 3 I. The factual background of this case is one that is becoming familiar in the many district courts that have faced challenges by court security officers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA0MjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0426-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is automatically substituted for former Secretary Thomas Ridge as the respondent in this case. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RICHARD MERRITT. Who is of Puerto Rican ethnicity. Fernandez's Medical Leave of Absence and Return to Work Fernandez was injured on August 5. Fernandez was examined by several doctors who evaluated his ability to return to work. Fernandez was examined by Dr. Fernandez was examined by Dr. Who also concluded that Fernandez was capable of returning to active duty employment without any restrictions. Fernandez was examined by Dr. Stiler opined that Fernandez was considered to have a partial disability and approved his return to work on restricted duty only. He was advised. That no light duty existed for the canine unit and that he was required to provide the Department with a physician's note indicating that he was able to return to full duty. Stiler confirmed that Fernandez was unable to return to full duty employment due to his disc herniation and that his work restrictions should be considered permanent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1218p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the record reflects a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Quaker State's asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging Brewer are pretextual. We will reverse the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Quaker State and remand the matter for further proceedings. Brewer was supervised by two different division managers. He was transferred to the Detroit division. Brewer was placed on a ninety day probation for his performance deficiencies. Brewer was the only salesperson in the Detroit region to receive such a bonus for both 1990 and 1991. Brewer's personnel file for the years prior to 1990 was lost. It is not disputed that Brewer's mean performance evaluation rating from 1987 through 1990 was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1093p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Factual Background and Procedural History This appeal arises in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case in which the employer is New Jersey Transit Rail Operations. Cars are connected to each other by vestibules. Which are enclosed areas located just outside the passenger seating compartments of each car. Appellant Thomas Fashauer was performing his usual duties as brakeman on a New Jersey Transit train en route from Lindenwold. Signaling the engineer that the platform was clear and that the train could depart. It was raining heavily. The rug on the vestibule floor was soaked when the train arrived at the Atco station on the last run of the day. Fashauer was not holding on to the handrails at the time. He testified that he was in agony at the time. Alleging that his injury was proximately caused by New Jersey Transit's negligence. The case was tried between March 7. New Jersey Transit defended against Fashauer's claims by presenting evidence that the seals were not defective. The slippery condition was purely the result of the rainy weather. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022416.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Bhella was subjected to an objectively hostile work environment. A. Surjit Bhella was born in India. Bhella was hired in January 1989 as a civilian employee at the Naval Consolidated Brig that was then under construction in Charleston. Bhella conducted surveys among the prisoners while they were housed at the Brig and after they were released. No one was performing that function at the Brig. The Brig is headed by a Commanding Officer ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/023764p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Conclude that this agreement to arbitrate is unenforceable pursuant to the well established doctrine of unconscionability. We therefore will reverse. I. Plaintiffs have worked for over twenty years as heavy equipment and certified crane operators at the Hess oil refinery on St. It announced in June 1996 that the equipment contract was awarded to Anthony Crane. Are not limited to. In no event may EMPLOYEE bring a claim of any nature against ANTHONY unless the claim is filed as set forth in this paragraph within thirty (30) days of the last day EMPLOYEE was employed by ANTHONY. If notice is given by hand delivery. If notice is given by certified mail. In the event that timely notice is not provided to the Company as set forth herein. It is agreed that the EMPLOYEE has waived EMPLOYEE's right to assert the claim. Shall have no further remedy against the Company. It is further agreed that this time limitation is to be strictly enforced by the arbitrator. The employee is bound to provide reimbursement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1116a.html">LUTHERAN CHCH MO V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Schaerr</i> were on the briefs.<p> <p> <p> <i>Daniel M. Were on the brief. <i><p> Robert B. Honig</i> was on the brief for intervenors Missouri <p> State Conference of Branches of the NAACP. Was on the brief for the United States as <i><p> amicus curiae.</i><p> <p> <i>Michael E. Rosman</i> was on the brief for <i>amici curiae</i> <p> Center for Individual Rights and National Religious Broad <p> casters. <i>Michael P. May </i><p> were on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> American Center for <p> Law and Justice.<p> <p> Before: Silberman. Both stations <p> <p> <p> are housed on the campus of the Church's Concordia Semi <p> nary and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0744p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1992 as a term of an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-2897.man.html">WIDEMAN V. WAL-MART STORES, INC. (5/27/1998, NO. 97-2897)<BR></A><BR> Wideman's contention that the district court erred in granting Wal Mart a judgment on her hostile environment and constructive discharge claims is meritless. The judgment with respect to those claims is affirmed without further discussion. Are required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. <EM>See Walls v. (3) the adverse action was causally related to the protected expression. <EM>See. The parties disagree over whether a plaintiff who alleges she was retaliated against for filing an EEOC charge of discrimination must also establish. Wideman argues that a plaintiff who alleges she suffered retaliation for filing an EEOC charge is pursuing her claim under the participation clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a). That protection from retaliation under the participation clause is not conditioned by a good faith. Notes that we have held that retaliation claims brought under the opposition clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a) are conditioned by a good faith. Holding that Wideman did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation because her EEOC charge of discrimination was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/04/04-30233.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Is employed by the United States Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1343.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A jury found Fairfield liable and judgment was entered in her favor. Which was approximately half of the amount McInnis requested. Fairfield is one of only two large employers in the area. McInnis worked as the assistant to the Vice President of Sales and (1) We are taking the evidence and any inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to McInnis because she prevailed before the jury. McInnis was promoted to Property Manager at Fairfield's site in Pagosa Springs. Thull was transferred to Las Vegas. McInnis was instructed to contact Thull while on a business trip in Las Vegas. Thull telephoned McInnis and told her he was returning to Fairfield in Pagosa Springs. Told him she could not take his harassment anymore and that she was going to tell someone at Fairfield. Gray contacted McInnis by email and told her that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5130.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Her <hr> second lawsuit alleges she was denied an opportunity with the company in retaliation for her earlier victory. She was terminated from that position and offered a contract as a district representative. She was terminated from the district representative position but was offered a district agent contract. The court granted summary judgment as to all claims relative to Jencks' termination because the district representative position was that of an independent contractor. Jencks was an employee of MWA. All other positions involved in this case are independent contractor positions. The parties are careful to distinguish these positions. MWA in particular is very precise in referring to Jencks' relationship with it both in the past and in this case as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001591.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because Riley made out a prima facie case of disability and Newport News's evidence of a performance based reason for her discharge is nonresponsive to its burden of showing suitable alternative employment. Her first assignment was in the Newport News pipefitters' department. Riley was working in the copper shop. She was sent to welding school. Because Riley was still in her probationary period. All of her grades through April 1996 were passing. Riley was then transferred to the U.S.S. A post probationary apprentice who receives a failing monthly grade on job performance is placed on shop probation for a four month period beginning on the second month following the failing grade. The apprentice is advised of the failing grade and is counseled. 3 she initialed the failing grade and that this was her second failing grade during her employment with Newport News. Asked her if there was anything he needed to know regarding her performance. She said there was no problem. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1116c.html">LUTHERAN CHCH MO V. FCC<BR></A><BR> <i>Circuit Judges.</i><p> <p> <p> <p> <i>O R D E R</i> <p> <p> Respondent's and Intervenor's Suggestions of Rehearing <i><p> En Banc</i> and the response thereto have been circulated to <p> <p> <p> the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. It is<p> <p> <b>Ordered</b> that the suggestions be denied.<p> <p> <b>Per Curiam</b><p> <p> <b>FOR THE COURT:</b><p> <p> Mark J. Dissenting from the denial of the <p> suggestions of rehearing <i>en banc</i> is attached.<p> <p> <p> <p> A statement filed by <i>Circuit Judge</i> Tatel. Dissenting from the denial of <p> the suggestions of rehearing <i>en banc</i> is also attached.<p> <p> <p> <p> <i>Circuit Judge</i> Rogers would grant the suggestions of re <p> hearing <i>en banc</i>.<i><p> </i><p> <p> <p> <i>Circuit Judge</i> Garland did not participate in this matter.<p> <p> <p> Separate statement filed by <i>Chief Judge</i> Edwards. The panel in this case has created a constitu <p> tional issue where none exists.<p> <p> At issue are equal employment opportunity regulations <p> promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission <p> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2239.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is Hispanic. Was careless with expensive equipment. Plaintiff was informed that he was now required to provide a doctor's explanation for his sick leave and he (1) On January 21. Johanns is substituted for AnnVeneman as the defendant in this action. (2) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> was placed on a six month restrictive leave schedule. Plaintiff was issued a ninety day performance improvement plan (PIP). Plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing that: 1) he was engaged in protected opposition to discrimination. 2) he was subjected to an adverse employment action. It is undisputed that plaintiff's EEO complaint in May 2001 constituted protected activity that satisfies the first element of this test. Plaintiff contends that this ruling was in error. Were sufficiently severe to constitute adverse employment action. (1) Plaintiff's complaint also alleged a claim for racial discrimination. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3077enbanc.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Theodore B. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Donald E. With him on the brief were Jeffrey G. Of counsel on the brief were Ronald L. With him on the brief were Martha B. Because the VEOA is subject to equitable tolling and Kirkendall is entitled to a hearing on his USERRA claim. Was chosen to fill the position. All of which were denied. The board has no authority to decide whether DoL should have waived the 60 day deadline. The board affirmed the AJ's decision that the VEOA claim was precluded for failure to timely file. The board held that Kirkendall's assertion that he was not selected based on his status as a disabled veteran was cognizable. That Kirkendall had offered no proof that his veteran status was a substantial or motivating factor in his nonselection. Review was denied. Cir. 2006) (per curiam order). 05 3077 3 The order granting en banc review asked the parties to brief three issues: (1) Is the 15 day period for filing appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1)(B) subject to equitable tolling? (2) Is the 60 day period for filing a claim with the Secretary of Labor set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A) subject to equitable tolling? (3) Are all veterans who allege a USERRA violation entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 7701? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/94-5083.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF HIALEAH (5/7/1998, NO. 94-5083)<BR></A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 2000e <EM>et seq.</EM> Other parts of the consent decree have been approved and entered. They are not in question. One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. The part of the decree the district court refused to enter would have granted retroactive competitive seniority to those thirty new black employees.</P> <P> The district court. We agree with the district court that the retroactive seniority part of the proposed consent decree would have diminished the seniority rights of incumbent employees. Which are legally enforceable rights guaranteed to them by their collective bargaining agreements. Or a finding that the provision was necessary and appropriate to remedy discrimination proven during a trial at which all affected parties had an opportunity to participate. We also conclude that the cross appeal is moot.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. The Hialeah workforce was approximately 17% black. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-3332.html">HORTON V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1575.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lucas is an African American male who has been employed with the CTA since 1993. Lucas was hired as a track inspector. Maintaining and repairing sections of track and surrounding right of ways to ensure the tracks were safe for CTA trains. The Tie Handler machine is used to stack railroad ties prior to their insertion or after their extraction. He only was permitted to operate that machine three times. He was often assigned to work on the Tie Handler machine. This request also was to no avail. 1 Because this is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment. Lucas checked the box that indicated that he was alleging race discrimination by his supervisor. Lucas details the days he was permitted to work on the machine and his efforts in securing more work for himself on the machine he preferred. This request was denied. A position in which he was no longer supervised by Blatz. Lucas asserts that he was aware of the finding of cause but not aware either that the finding was discredited upon review or that the managers were not disciplined in any way. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/02-1098.htm">02-1098 -- MCCRARY V. AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS -- 01/29/2003<BR></A><BR> McCrary was an elementary teacher at Jewell Elementary School in the Aurora Colorado Public School District. Of concern are events that took place between 1996 and 1999. McCrary was assigned to a third grade classroom for the 1996 1997 school year. That school year was also defendant Julie Morris' first as principal at Jewell Elementary. Plaintiff requested and was granted a leave of absence to care for her ailing parents. She was able to return and resume her full teaching responsibilities as of November 1. There is no evidence that Ms. Informed plaintiff that she was placing her on evaluation. Morris responded by granting those accommodations that were not specifically contradicted by the remediation plan. <p> Throughout the following school year. She was switched from a remediation plan to a growth plan. <p> In January 1998. Because she thought the position would accommodate most of plaintiff's needs and plaintiff would have the greatest chance of success in that position. Morris received notice that plaintiff was taking a leave of absence until her disability retirement application could be approved. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-3018.htm">96-3018 -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 03/13/1998<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Robert Smith was employed by the defendant. Plaintiff was on a leave of absence and was receiving workers' compensation benefits. He contends that there were numerous job openings at Midland Brake that should have been made available to him and asserts that defendant either could have obtained or did obtain releases from his physician for him to work in those positions. Contends that it made efforts to return plaintiff to work in different positions at the company but was unable to obtain a written release from plaintiff's physician allowing him to return to work. <p> On September 7. Plaintiff asserted that he was discharged in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He was discharged in retaliation for pursuing his workers' compensation claim. Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3377_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McKissic also contends that he should have been given notice that the court was contemplating such special conditions. It was determined later that the weapon was only a pellet gun. Was apprehended by the police a few blocks away. McKissic had dropped out of high school during his senior year and does not have a high school diploma. Including a 2001 conviction for domestic battery for which he was on probation when he committed the bank robbery. The court noted that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/96-3018.htm">96-3018 -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 06/14/1999<BR></A><BR> We are required to answer two questions concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whether an employee can be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-1116c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R Respondent's and Intervenor's Suggestions of Rehearing En Banc and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. It is Ordered that the suggestions be denied. Dissenting from the denial of the suggestions of rehearing en banc is attached. Dissenting from the denial of the suggestions of rehearing en banc is also attached. At issue are equal employment opportunity regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/96-3018a.htm">96-3018A -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 06/14/1999<BR></A><BR> The plaintiff appellant should have been listed as follows: <p> GENEVA M. Deceased. <p> <p> A copy of the corrected slip opinion cover page is attached. <p> Sincerely. We are required to answer two questions concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whether an employee can be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3334.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They have sought to bring class action claims alleging several unlawful employment practices under both disparate impact and disparate treatment theories of discrimination. The two subclasses relevant to this appeal are a subclass of hourly female workers (the Hourly Subclass) and a subclass of salaried female workers (the Salaried Subclass). Before us now are both (1) the district court's summary judgment on the Hourly Subclass's disparate impact claim relating to overtime assignments. We affirm the district court's summary judgment because Plaintiffs' statistical evidence is not adequately based on data restricted to persons eligible for overtime assignments. We dismiss Plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's class action decisions because they were not filed within 10 days of the district court's initial decision denying class certification. We reject the claims of three former class representatives who were stripped of that designation by the district court on the ground that they could not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-7046.htm">02-7046 -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. W.H. BRAUM INC. -- 10/28/2003<BR></A><BR> Willis was now barred from reasserting her federal ADA claim. Willis was time barred. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/94-5083.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF HIALEAH (5/7/1998, NO. 94-5083)<BR></A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 2000e <EM>et seq.</EM> Other parts of the consent decree have been approved and entered. They are not in question. One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. The part of the decree the district court refused to enter would have granted retroactive competitive seniority to those thirty new black employees.</P> <P> The district court. We agree with the district court that the retroactive seniority part of the proposed consent decree would have diminished the seniority rights of incumbent employees. Which are legally enforceable rights guaranteed to them by their collective bargaining agreements. Or a finding that the provision was necessary and appropriate to remedy discrimination proven during a trial at which all affected parties had an opportunity to participate. We also conclude that the cross appeal is moot.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. The Hialeah workforce was approximately 17% black. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct12/04-30233.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Is employed by the United States Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-1484.htm">01-1484 -- RAKITY V. DILLON CO. INC. -- 08/29/2002<BR></A><BR> Rakity did not have a covered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972897.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wideman's contention that the district court erred in granting Wal Mart a judgment on her hostile environment and constructive discharge claims is meritless. The judgment with respect to those claims is affirmed without further discussion. Are required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. (3) the adverse action was causally related to the protected expression. The parties disagree over whether a plaintiff who alleges she was retaliated against for filing an EEOC charge of discrimination must also establish. Wideman argues that a plaintiff who alleges she suffered retaliation for filing an EEOC 2 charge is pursuing her claim under the participation clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a). That protection from retaliation under the participation clause is not conditioned by a good faith. Notes that we have held that retaliation claims brought under the opposition clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a) are conditioned by a good faith. Holding that Wideman did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation because her EEOC charg