skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
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 and discrimination returned 8589 results.

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

1000 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.
984 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 (

984 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 (

973 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. JOE'S STONE CRAB (8/4/2000, NO. 98-5367)

Circuit Judge:

973 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. JOE'S STONE CRAB (8/4/2000, NO. 98-5367)

Circuit Judge:

958 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
945 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.

945 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.

937 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
930 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
928 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
924 OPINION/ORDER
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:
924 OPINION/ORDER
1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part:
917 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
915 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).
915 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).
913 OPINION/ORDER
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
913 OPINION/ORDER
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
911 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:
908 BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (7/9/2001, NO. 99-10579)

Is vacated. A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.

908 BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (7/9/2001, NO. 99-10579)

Is vacated. A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.

904 OPINION/ORDER
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
902 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
898 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.
898 BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2/21/2001, NO. 99-10579)

A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.

898 BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2/21/2001, NO. 99-10579)

A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.

895 OPINION/ORDER
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
887 OPINION/ORDER
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.
884 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
882 HIPP V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (5/29/2001, NO. 99-10699)

We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 300
882 HIPP V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (5/29/2001, NO. 99-10699)

We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 300
880 OPINION/ORDER
We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. We will use the terms
880 OPINION/ORDER
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.
880 OPINION/ORDER
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
878 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.
878 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

878 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

874 OPINION/ORDER
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.
874 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
874 OPINION/ORDER
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.
871 BLEDSOE V. PALM BEACH COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST. (1/22/1998, NO. 96-5375)

We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

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

871 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
871 BLEDSOE V. PALM BEACH COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST. (1/22/1998, NO. 96-5375)

We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

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

871 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.

867 OPINION/ORDER
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.
865 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
861 WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)

The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.

I.

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.

861 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 (
861 WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)

The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.

I.

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.

856 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief.
854 OPINION/ORDER
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.
854 OPINION/ORDER
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
841 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.

841 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.

841 OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff Wanda Birch was hired as a Probate Court magistrate after interviewing with Probate Court Administrator/Magistrate John Polito. Birch was hired as a Release of Assets magistrate and continues to serve in that capacity. The salary survey showed that the average salary of female Probate Court magistrates was lower than the average salary of male Probate Court magistrates. That the highest paid female magistrate was earning less than the lowest paid male magistrate. Birch's salary was revealed to be the lowest of any of the magistrates in any of the divisions of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Birch then asked Judge Donnelly why she was the lowest paid Magistrate at the court and whether he had a concern about her work.
841 OPINION/ORDER
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
841 OPINION/ORDER
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.
839 OPINION/ORDER
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
839 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Donald Scott Lagatree was refused employment as a legal secretary by Luce. Both cases are closely on point.'
837 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
837 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
835 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 (
835 OPINION/ORDER
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
835 OPINION/ORDER
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.
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
832 OPINION/ORDER
That sex was
832 98-2215 -- CISNEROS V. WILSON -- 09/11/2000

Holding that Plaintiff could not prove: (1) that she was a
832 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
830 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
828 OPINION/ORDER
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
826 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
826 RANDLE V. CITY OF AURORA

This is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendant Appellee City of Aurora (
824 OPINION/ORDER
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
824 OPINION/ORDER
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.
824 OPINION/ORDER
The appellants were members of the Union while employed by the Times. Most counts were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the appellants' failure to exhaust administrative remedies or to their lateness infiling charges. The male appellants' sex discrimination claims were dismissed for lack of standing to sue under Title VII and NJLAD. We conclude that the Amended Complaint should not have been dismissed in its entirety. We will reverse. We do so based on our determination that
824 OPINION/ORDER
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.
824 02-1102 -- HILLIG V. RUMSFELD -- 08/27/2004

Circuit Judge.

822 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
822 OPINION/ORDER
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:
822 97-2343 -- PERRY V. WOODWARD -- 12/20/1999

Circuit Judges.

817 OPINION/ORDER
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
817 OPINION/ORDER
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
817 OPINION/ORDER
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.
817 BROWN REGINA C V. BRODY KENNETH D

With him

on the briefs was Michael P. With him on the brief were Wilma A.

Lewis. 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

817 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 (
817 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 (
815 OPINION/ORDER
The jury found that Meadowcraft The denied Combs a supervisory position because of his race. dispositive issue in the appeal is whether Combs produced evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to disbelieve Meadowcraft's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote Combs. That Meadowcraft was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for that reason. Part I of this opinion is a discussion of the facts. Our discussion of the law and application of it to the facts is contained in Part IV. It is in those parts of this opinion that we answer the dicta contained in the recent panel opinion in Isenbergh v. Which is critical of the holding in Howard v. Evidence from which the factfinder could find that all of the employer's proffered reasons for the challenged job action are pretextual entitles the plaintiff to have the factfinder decide the ultimate issue of discrimination. answer the We Isenbergh panel's criticism of the Howard line of decisions and explain why the holding of those cases is the law of this circuit.
815 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 1. This evidence is insufficient to make out a prima facie case.
815 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
815 OPINION/ORDER
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.
813 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
813 WALKER V. NATIONSBANK OF FL

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > 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-8.gif" ALT="813"></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="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1252p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we are bound by our court's decision in Fuentes v. She was subsequently promoted to hostess in the Lobby Lounge. She was transferred to the Green Room restaurant and was promoted to head captain of the breakfast and lunch shifts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></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-8.gif" ALT="813"></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="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-2788.man.html">KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></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="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/77DCF4F385244CAE88257114005B1893/$file/0435187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005 is amended as follows: 1. 2. Footnote six is deleted in its entirety. The first sentence of Part I ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-2788.man.html">KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0667n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Facility is a maximum security youth detention prison housing inmates ranging in age from 13 to 16 years. COs are required to work at various posts. It further provides that GEO </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B6258F20B32C1A8D88256C4C007B2E71/$file/0055343.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></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-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-1145.htm">00-1145 -- CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. <p> In 1993. A bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. <em>See Concrete Works of Colorado. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. <em>See</em> <em>id</em>. at 1044. Anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></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-8.gif" ALT="806"></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-8.gif" ALT="804"></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-8.gif" ALT="804"></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-8.gif" ALT="804"></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-8.gif" ALT="804"></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="804"></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-8.gif" ALT="802"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956922.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The dispositive issue in the appeal is whether Combs produced evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to disbelieve Meadowcraft's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote Combs. That Meadowcraft was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for that reason. Part I of this opinion is a discussion of the facts. Our discussion of the law and application of it to the facts is contained in Part IV. It is in those parts of this opinion that we answer the dicta contained in the recent panel opinion in Isenbergh v. Which is critical of the holding in Howard v. Evidence from which the factfinder could find that all of the employer's proffered reasons for the challenged job action are pretextual entitles the plaintiff to have the factfinder decide the ultimate issue of discrimination. We answer the Isenbergh panel's criticism of the Howard line of decisions and explain why the holding of those cases is the law of this circuit. Which is sold under the brand name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="802"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-6922.man.html">COMBS V. PLANTATION PATTERNS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Combs v. The dispositive issue in the appeal is whether Combs produced evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to disbelieve Meadowcraft's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote Combs. That Meadowcraft was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for that reason.<p> Part I of this opinion is a discussion of the facts. Our discussion of the law and application of it to the facts is contained in Part IV. It is in those parts of this opinion that we answer the dicta contained in the recent panel opinion in <i>Isenbergh v. Which is critical of the holding in <i>Howard v. Evidence from which the factfinder could find that all of the employer's proffered reasons for the challenged job action are pretextual entitles the plaintiff to have the factfinder decide the ultimate issue of discrimination. We answer the <i>Isenbergh</i> panel's criticism of the <i>Howard</i> line of decisions and explain why the holding of those cases is the law of this circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="802"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0770n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With respect to all but one of the promotions he was denied. Non discriminatory reasons for its actions that were not rebutted by Campbell as pretext. The district court held that Campbell did establish a prima facie case with respect to one promotion he was denied where the University had not yet filled the position. The University concedes that these actions were adverse employment actions under Title VII. Campbell is the only African American in the HVAC shop. A white employee was also given a verbal warning for insubordination toward his supervisor. 3 No. 05 4528 Campbell v. Who was not a PFOC employee at the time. Because for each it was his second offense. Whereas Howard received a verbal warning because this was his first offense. A Caucasian employee was disciplined for the same issue [of violating the lunch break policy] </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="802"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-6922.man.html">COMBS V. PLANTATION PATTERNS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Combs v. The dispositive issue in the appeal is whether Combs produced evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to disbelieve Meadowcraft's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for failing to promote Combs. That Meadowcraft was entitled to judgment as a matter of law for that reason.<p> Part I of this opinion is a discussion of the facts. Our discussion of the law and application of it to the facts is contained in Part IV. It is in those parts of this opinion that we answer the dicta contained in the recent panel opinion in <i>Isenbergh v. Which is critical of the holding in <i>Howard v. Evidence from which the factfinder could find that all of the employer's proffered reasons for the challenged job action are pretextual entitles the plaintiff to have the factfinder decide the ultimate issue of discrimination. We answer the <i>Isenbergh</i> panel's criticism of the <i>Howard</i> line of decisions and explain why the holding of those cases is the law of this circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="800"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0405p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The KRS disability retirement benefits plan (hereinafter </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.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-7.gif" ALT="798"></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="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI1ODItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2582-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </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.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-7.gif" ALT="798"></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="798"></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-7.gif" ALT="796"></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="796"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ABD6A99B4FC2C05C88256DF00000F5D7/$file/0235399.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is: what showing of pretext must a plaintiff in a retaliation suit make in order to overcome a defendant's motion for summary judgment. She was unable to demonstrate that Marathon's nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her were a pretext for retaliation. Stegall alleges that she was fired from KORD. Facts Lynda Stegall was employed by Citadel Broadcasting Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="796"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6300.htm">98-6300 -- SIMS V. HALLIBURTON CO. -- 07/14/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Halliburton Co. hired plaintiff Larry Don Sims. Contending he was terminated in retaliation for reporting violations of environmental law and because of his age. Halliburton challenged Sims' retaliation claim on the ground that it alleged he was discharged for making internal reports of federal law violations. Which is not sufficient to establish a violation of Oklahoma public policy. Our task is to achieve the same result in federal court that would have been reached in state court had the state claims been pursued there. <u>See</u> <u>Perlmutter v. While we are not bound by the rulings of the lower Oklahoma courts. We will generally follow them absent compelling reasons not to. <u>See</u> <u>Perlmutter</u>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="796"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E5127BFB9AC6CBC288256E1200826E11/$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="793"></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="793"></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-7.gif" ALT="791"></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-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/96-7030b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief for amicus curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We granted en banc review on the question whether the standard of evidence for punitive dam ages under Title VII is. We further hold that no evidence of such behavior was shown at trial in this case. Thus affirm the district court on the issue of punitive damages. * * * ADA is a Chicago based professional organization with an office in Washington. Both Kolstad and Spangler are lawyers. (There is no evidence that the job has not in fact included those elements.). In October 1992 Wheat approved a performance evaluation of Spangler in which Spangler stated that one of his objectives for 1993 was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></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-7.gif" ALT="789"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-8915.man.html">DOE V. DEKALB COUNTY SCH. DIST. (7/17/1998, NO. 97-8915)<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="789"></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="789"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-8915.man.html">DOE V. DEKALB COUNTY SCH. DIST. (7/17/1998, NO. 97-8915)<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="789"></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="787"></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-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.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="787"></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-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1185.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Timmerman was terminated from her position as branch manager at U.S. A position in which she was <hr> 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 </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/1998/05/96-6087.htm">96-6087 -- BEAIRD V. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, INC. -- 05/28/1998<BR></A><BR> More than 200 employees at Seagate's Oklahoma City facility were laid off. Some of the plaintiffs in this case had more than twenty years seniority when they were let go. They argue that it was reversible error to allow Seagate to submit a reply brief with additional materials after plaintiffs had responded to Seagate's original summary judgment motion. They contend that questions of material fact remain with respect to each plaintiff and that summary judgment was thus improper. <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> In 1993. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></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-7.gif" ALT="780"></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="778"></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-7.gif" ALT="778"></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-7.gif" ALT="778"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/992853P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Perry plant is divided into three sections: the kill floor. Where hogs are killed. The sections are organized into numerous production lines. Each of which is responsible for a different facet of hog processing. The lines are composed of line workers. A utility position is usually the first step towards promotion to such management support jobs as trainer. The lines are managed by front line supervisors and general supervisors. Supervisors are managed by plant superintendents. Who are responsible for all production functions. Who is the highest level manager in the plant. The Perry plant also employs a personnel director who is responsible for addressing employee grievances. The authority to terminate employees is vested in the plant manager and the personnel director. She was dating James Madison. An African American man who was also employed at the Perry plant. The couple married in 1996 and have two children. Was a reliable worker. 3 Madison presented a great deal of evidence at trial to show that she was subjected to a continuing pattern of racial and sexual harassment during her employment and that supervisors and managers failed to take action in response to her complaints. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="778"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2231.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="778"></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-7.gif" ALT="778"></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-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7ACE985610E84B3188256ED900685F91/$file/0235805.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL ACKLES. North Puget Sound Presbytery (together the </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/1999/08/97-2343.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="774"></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="774"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2024B9863BDEA09288256DCE00764415/$file/0157013.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Liu failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Amway's reasons for Defendant Amway is now named Alticor. AMWAY CORPORATION 15593 terminating her were pretextual and. The district court held that Amway had not interfered with Liu's FMLA/CFRA leave because Liu was on leave when she was terminated. Xin Liu was the first scientist hired in the Concentrate Development Department of the Nutrilite Division of Amway Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/77B8AFEA1963C8A988257123007FF796/$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="772"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1507a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That summary judgment was inappropriate because there was sufficient direct evidence of discrimination to create a material issue of fact as to the legitimacy of his discharge. We will reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment. I. Credit Alliance is a commercial finance company that lends money to its customers for the lease or purchase of capital equipment. Frederick Keller was an Executive Vice President and Director of Credit Alliance. His primary responsibility was to raise the funds that Credit Alliance intended to lend to its customers. Keller became responsible for raising capital when Credit Alliance was sold in September of 1989 by First Interstate Bancorp to the ORIX Group. When Credit Alliance was owned by First Interstate. ORIX arranged to have First Interstate continue to provide working capital until Credit Alliance achieved financial independence. Keller was responsible for spearheading the effort to acquire sufficient funding to achieve Credit Alliance's goal of financial independence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1125a.htm">98-1125A -- BULLINGTON V. UNITED AIR LINES INC. -- 08/12/1999<BR></A><BR> 1999 <p> The opinion filed in this case contains a clerical error on line 1 of page 27. <p> The characters </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1507p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That summary judgment was inappropriate because there was sufficient direct evidence of discrimination to create a material issue of fact as to the legitimacy of his discharge. We will reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment. I. Credit Alliance is a commercial finance company that lends money to its customers for the lease or purchase of capital equipment. Frederick Keller was an Executive Vice President and Director of Credit Alliance. His primary responsibility was to raise the funds that Credit Alliance intended to lend to its customers. Keller became responsible for raising capital when Credit Alliance was sold in September of 1989 by First Interstate Bancorp to the ORIX Group. When Credit Alliance was owned by First Interstate. ORIX arranged to have First Interstate continue to provide working capital until Credit Alliance achieved financial independence. Keller was responsible for spearheading the effort to acquire sufficient funding to achieve Credit Alliance's goal of financial independence. </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/July1997/97a1639p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinson alleges that she was sexually <p>harassed by appellee James Dickerson (her supervisor) and <p>that appellees Craig Edwards (an assistant police chief) and <p>Earl Buford (the chief of police) knew of the harassment but <p>failed to take action to stop it. Robinson was <p>assigned to a drug suppression unit commanded by then <br wp= </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/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="770"></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-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1639p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </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/June1994/94a0726p.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-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08878B3F87AA23AB88256B970082A04D/$file/9935932.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tidyman's argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying Tidyman's' motion for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient. That the size of the jury verdict was excessive. Tidyman's argues that the Washington state law is intended to cover only accrued wages that are not paid. Arguing that we should not apply the Title VII damages cap to these awards because it is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the district court's determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages. We conclude that Title VII's cap on punitive damages is constitutional. Was promoted to officer manager. Hemmings was promoted to controller in 1987. Hemmings was concerned about the lack of women in management positions at Tidyman's and what she perceived as roadblocks to their promotions. Was promoted to Chief Operating Officer and the CFO position opened. Trial witnesses testified that Hemmings was wellqualified for the CFO position. Hemmings was interviewed for the position along with another woman and one man. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></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="765"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0021n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Ploscowe has failed to establish that KBC's proffered reasons for his termination were pretextual. Ploscowe was hired by KBC. Ploscowe was 49 years old at the time he was hired. Ploscowe was responsible for purchasing a range of items. The result of this decision was the Ploscowe was actually hired by. Will refer to the plaintiff's employer as KBC. 2 1 No. 03 4341 Ploscowe v. Ploscowe was chosen for termination. Ploscowe was notified of his anticipated layoff on November 3. A memo alleging that he was selected for termination because of his age and religion. He was replaced by Ed Healy. Cadle was not replaced a level of management was simply eliminated and Ploscowe. 2 was hired on March 12. KBC states that in early 2001 there was a dramatic reduction in the demand for papermaking equipment.3 JA 59. One month after Harper was hired. The age and seniority of the six buyer/planners working for KBC in April of 2001 are as follows: 1. Harper is listed as 40 years old at the time he was hired. There is a chart in the record stating that Harper was age 40 at the time of hire. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C35DD8755B28039788256E530077F226/$file/0157065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGinest alleges that he was placed in dangerous working conditions because of his race. McGinest claims that he was denied a promotion in late 1998 due to his race and in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. GTE responds that it was unable to promote him due to a hiring freeze. The court found that the incidents comprising the hostile work environment claim were sporadic. It found that McGinest was unable to produce sufficient evidence that GTE's stated reason for failing to promote him was a pretext. GTE SERVICE CORP. 3007 whether the denial of the promotion was prompted by a discriminatory motive. I. BACKGROUND George McGinest is an African American employee of GTE. McGinest was initially hired as a lineman. Because this case was decided on summary judgment. Although GTE is now owned by Verizon. We continue to refer to it by the name under which it was sued. 1 3008 MCGINEST v. Although the majority of these incidents were not accompanied by explicit racial comments. McGinest testified at his deposition that Noson's behavior and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1C3B4BFD1CEAE8E88256C3E0057C78C/$file/9816924.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case presents the question of whether an employee who alleges that he was subjected to severe. Even if that employee also alleges that the motivation for that discrimination was his sexual orientation. We would hold that an employee's sexual orientation is irrelevant for purposes of Title VII. That the harasser is. Motivated by hostility based on sexual orientation is similarly irrelevant. It is enough that the harasser have engaged in severe or pervasive unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature. The relevant facts are not in dispute. High profile and famous guests for whom that floor was reserved. Were also male. Rene gave deposition testimony that he was caressed and hugged and that his coworkers would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3442.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Francesca Alvaro. With her on the brief were Neil A.G. Garcia had not proven that her actions were involuntary and therefore dismissed Ms. I An adverse action is an official action taken by a federal agency and imposed on an employee. Such official action is by statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the Board. An aggrieved employee can appeal such an action to the Board for a determination as to whether the action was proper. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d) (2000). It deals with what is known as a constructive adverse action. Although a resignation is ostensibly a voluntary separation from employment. It is possible that an employee can be coerced into resigning by actions of the employing agency. Such an involuntary adverse action is known as a constructive adverse action. Garcia alleges that the constructive adverse action was prompted by a violation of her rights to be free from discrimination in the workplace. It is 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://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="763"></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="761"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/062556P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></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-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4047_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that Humphries could not establish his prima facie burden of showing that a similarly situated individual in a non protected class was treated more favorably. 2 No. 05 4047 We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment as to Humphries's retaliation claim because Humphries made a sufficient showing under the indirect method to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under section 1981. I. BACKGROUND The following facts are recounted in the light most favorable to Humphries. Was an associate manager at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Bradley. Associate managers at Cracker Barrel are supervised by a general manager. Who in turn is supervised by a district manager. His performance during his first two and a half years (roughly February 1999 through midJuly 2001) was generally excellent. Such as stating that all African Americans are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EA12EAE1E7DD7C488256D1600736A46/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and the attached opinion is ORDERED filed. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></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="759"></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="759"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993863.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide whether. The Supreme Court recently held that 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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/952562P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that he was fired on the basis of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Rothmeier was fired at the age of forty six. IAI is a complex business enterprise of funds. IAI is an investment advisor and makes money by procuring investment funds. Which are managed for a fee by the various IAI divisions. of IAI Capital Group. Was organized as a limited partnership to At the time of Rothmeier's hiring. Who was then age fifty. Knew that Rothmeier was over forty. Rothmeier was informed by Linda Watchmaker. Perhaps was not in compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration rules. million. Watchmaker's information suggested that the financial exposure resulting from the registration problem was in excess of $11 On the basis of this information. Rothmeier undertook an investigation to determine whether IAVMI was in compliance with SEC rules. Rothmeier had concluded that IAVMI was does not raise any issue with respect to that ruling. 2 in violation of SEC regulations and reported this information to Rahn. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1747p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORIX Credit Alliance's petition for <p>rehearing en banc was granted. ORIX Credit <p>Alliance is a subsidiary of companies that are in turn <p>subsidiaries of ORIX Corporation. ORIX Credit Alliance is a commercial <p>finance company that is engaged primarily in the business <p>of financing the acquisition or leasing of equipment. Id. at 80. <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0CFE7744A3DD584188256C7D00041477/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(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://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="754"></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-7.gif" ALT="754"></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-7.gif" ALT="752"></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-7.gif" ALT="752"></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-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1747p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORIX Credit Alliance's petition for rehearing en banc was granted. ORIX Credit Alliance is a subsidiary of companies that are in turn subsidiaries of ORIX Corporation. ORIX Credit Alliance is a commercial finance company that is engaged primarily in the business of financing the acquisition or leasing of equipment. Frederick Keller was born on January 31. He was hired by Franklin National Bank and eventually handled its relationship with Credit Alliance Corporation. Keller was promoted to senior vice president of finance. Therefore it was no longer necessary for Keller to raise money. Keller and six other key executives were requested to sign employment contracts with the new company. Keller was given the responsibility for raising funding for ORIX Credit Alliance. 1.3 billion of which was to continue to be provided on a temporary basis. Because it was the goal of Credit Alliance to obtain funding independent of First Interstate Bancorp and of ORIX Corp. or ORIX USA[an ORIX subsidiary] [Keller] determined that it would ultimately be necessary for Credit Alliance to have available credit facilities totaling approximately 1.5 billion dollars. </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/10circuit/nov95/94-1009.html">REYNOLDS V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1<BR></A><BR> 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. </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/05a0107n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. I. Plaintiffs are all hourly employees over the age of 40 who work for Tyson. Each is a recipient of a pension from the former owner of the Tyson facility. The Tapered Bearing Division of SKF was experiencing financial difficulties. Most SKF tapered bearing employees were represented by the United Steelworkers of America. Tyson understood that SKF was losing money and that the Tapered Bearing Division was expecting reduced sales volumes on an on going basis. That issue is not before the Court. 1 2 covered by the Union contract. The concept of second tier employees was memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement. In pertinent part: It is contemplated . . . that certain members of the bargaining unit. Will retire under the SKF Pension Plan. Pursuant to the 30 Year Retirement without actuarial reduction option (including these employees who are eligible to age into such option pursuant to the 1999 amendments to the labor contract) described in a Memorandum of Understanding between SKF and the Union or pursuant to an Early Retirement option with actuarial reduction. </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/06a0363p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brought suit against her employer alleging that she was subject to pregnancy discrimination. The police department moved for and was granted summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND Teresa Tysinger was hired by the City of Zanesville Police Department on September 8. She became aware that she was pregnant. 1 No. 05 3785 Tysinger v. This was her first pregnancy since becoming a police officer. Various alternative temporary assignments were discussed (i.e. No action was taken. Providing 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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1249.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy and Menard Murphy & Walsh were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. On the basis that the action was preempted by federal law. While Doulamis is not named as the aggrieved employee in these charges. Both parties agree that the employee referred to therein is. It is also alleged that these employees formed. That Chaulk's conduct was a deliberate attempt to discourage the employees from engaging in these activities. A full and comprehensive settlement agreement was reached between Chaulk and the NLRB in March 1995 regarding these claims. In that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></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-7.gif" ALT="748"></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="746"></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="746"></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="746"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1656.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP were on brief. L.L.P. were on brief. We conclude that such claims are notcognizable under either federal or state law.I. 28 U.S.C. 1332 Mullin is a citizen of NewHampshire and Raytheon is a Delaware corporation with its principalplace of business in Massachusetts set out four statements ofclaim: two for disparate treatment (one under the ADEA and oneunder Chapter 151B) and two for disparate impact (one under theADEA and one under Chapter 151B). ANALYSIS Summary judgment is a device that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></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="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-10782.man.html">RUTSTEIN V. AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYS. (5/11/2000, NO. 99-10782)<BR></A><BR> We now reverse.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is somewhat complicated by the fact that the original plaintiff. Was apparently not all that he claimed to be. A Yeshiva was understood to be someone with a </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/2003/07/01-4253.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="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-10782.man.html">RUTSTEIN V. AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYS. (5/11/2000, NO. 99-10782)<BR></A><BR> We now reverse.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is somewhat complicated by the fact that the original plaintiff. Was apparently not all that he claimed to be. A Yeshiva was understood to be someone with a </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/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="744"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/94-3344.wpd.html">TYLER V. CITY OF MANHATTAN<BR></A><BR> The district court ruled that compensatory damages for mental and emotional injury were not available under the ADA absent intentional discrimination. The district court further concluded that Tyler had not claimed he was subjected to intentional discrimination. No cause exists for this court to resolve an issue raised not by Tyler but by the United States as amicus: whether compensatory damages are recoverable for unintentional violations of the ADA. Is disabled within the meaning of the ADA.(2) He is partially paralyzed and essentially unable to read. Sitting by designation. (1) The City suggests that the district court's judgment was not a final. Appealable judgment because it ordered only injunctive relief and the district court necessarily retains jurisdiction over the parties until they have complied with the terms of the injunction. An order or judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it resolves all substantive issues on the merits and effectively ends the litigation. There was thus a final. Tyler was free to appeal from anything in that judgment or the court's prior. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></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-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/943622P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have filed a separate opinion. When Ryther was terminated. He was fifty three Ryther sued KARE 11 and its parent. Ryther Ryther's responsibilities was approximately fifty years of age. president. began changing that year. Ryther was entitled under his contract. Shaver was named executive producer of sports. Shortly after Ryther discovered he was being excluded from promotional photos. The decision not to renew Ryther's contract was made by Rios Brook. When Rios Brook was asked at trial what market research she relied on in making the decision about Ryther. She responded that it was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></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-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-1508.htm">01-1508 -- WELLS V. COLORADO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION -- 04/18/2003<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="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-6069.man.html">GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)<BR></A><BR> They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/943622P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When Ryther was terminated. He was fifty three years old. Ryther was approximately fifty years of age. Shaver was named executive producer of Shaver o'clock time slot. sports. A position to which Ryther was entitled under his contract. assumed many of Ryther's organizational and planning duties. Shortly after Ryther discovered he was being excluded from promotional photos. Ryther left KARE 2 The decision not to renew Ryther's contract was made by Rios Brook. When Rios Brook was asked at trial what market research she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2279.html">99A2279 -- IDIAMARCO V. RUNYON<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p>We are asked to review the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States Postal Service. Iadimarco filed an action under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act alleging </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2279.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States Postal Service. Iadimarco filed an action under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act alleging </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-6069.man.html">GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)<BR></A><BR> They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001507.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While he was stationed at a Marine base in Tustin. Except for a one year military leave of absence when he was stationed abroad. She responded that they would be glad to have him in the North Carolina store and to get in touch with the store when he arrived. Mansfield again indicated that there were no openings. Santana returned to the store twice in February but was unable to see either Mansfield or operations manager Katsekes. He was unable to speak with either of them. Which were submitted as exhibits in opposition to Sears's motion for summary judgment.). Haynes commented on Santana's accent and asked where he was </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/july97/95-3280.opa.html">HOLIFIELD V. RENO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Holifield v. Defendant.<p> <p> No. 94 50357 RV.<p> <b><i>ORDER</i></b><p> <p> Pending is the defendant's motion for summary judgment. (doc. 8)<p> <b>I. <i>BACKGROUND</i></b><p> <p> This is a petition for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board ( </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//july97/95-3280.opa.html">HOLIFIELD V. RENO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Holifield v. Defendant.<p> <p> No. 94 50357 RV.<p> <b><i>ORDER</i></b><p> <p> Pending is the defendant's motion for summary judgment. (doc. 8)<p> <b>I. <i>BACKGROUND</i></b><p> <p> This is a petition for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board ( </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.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="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-7044a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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=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="737"></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="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0246n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is black. The district court concluded that Home Depot was entitled to summary judgment because (1) it had a legitimate concern that Halfacre's commitment to his second job with the local fire department made him 1 Halfacre v. Halfacre began working for the Fire Department in 1979 and is currently employed as a driver. His work schedule is flexible. He is currently a full time associate in the paint department there. This requirement is also stated in the Department Supervisor job description. 2 Halfacre v. Though he was attending college classes that conflicted with his work schedule. Each of these men is black. Home Depot abided by its policy and prevented an employee from serving as a Department Supervisor because her schedule was not sufficiently flexible: Home Depot required Lisa Yancey. Who is white. To step down from that position because she was also enrolled in school. Halfacre's work schedule with the Fire Department is flexible and does not prevent him from working at Home Depot whenever he is needed. </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://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="737"></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-7.gif" ALT="735"></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-7.gif" ALT="735"></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="733"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2277.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for the defendant employer in a Title VII gender discrimination case brought by a discharged female employee calls upon us to decide the correctness of an instruction to the jury that it was required to return a verdict in favor of the defendant if it did not find that the plaintiff had been replaced by a male. That she was replaced by someone outside the relevant class. 1 We nonetheless will affirm the judgment of the District Court on the ground that the erroneous jury instruction was harmless. The mere fact that the issue arose in the context of a jury instruction is immaterial. That it is anomalous that this issue is presented in the context of a jury charge. For the determination of whether a prima facie case has been made out is a legal one for the court. Although the appellant raised this point for the first time in her opening brief on appeal (it was not raised in the district court and hence arguably waived as a possible basis for reversal). Because there is apparently some confusion on the issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A1EB78DA8B420AB882571C6007C3BDA/$file/0435984.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0386p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the FMLA's purported abrogation of Ohio's Eleventh Amendment immunity was unconstitutional as it related to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0203p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Dana Derungs was shopping at the Wal Mart store located in Lebanon. She was prohibited from doing so by a WalMart employee and told that she had the option of breast The Honorable Gerald E. Gore was waiting in a lay a way line at a Wal Mart store in Trotwood. She started to breast feed Austin but was interrupted by a Wal Mart employee who told her she was not permitted to breast feed her son in the store. Baird was interrupted by a store employee and informed that she could either breast feed in the restroom or had to leave the store. The complaint was amended to add Angie Baird and her infant daughter. Wal Mart's Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining common law claims was granted. A Final Judgment was entered on April 11. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to the district court's decision to grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is de novo. Summary judgment is proper if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011338.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 6 the citation is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2277.htm">99A2277 -- PIVIROTTO V. INNOVATIVE SYST.<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge. <p>This appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for the defendant employer in a Title VII gender discrimination case brought by a discharged female employee calls upon us to decide the correctness of an instruction to the jury that it was required to return a verdict in favor of the defendant if it did not find that the plaintiff had been replaced by a male. That she was replaced by someone outside the relevant class. 1 We nonetheless will affirm the judgment of the District Court on the ground that the erroneous jury instruction was harmless. <p>(Text continued on page 4) <font size= 1>1. The mere fact that the issue arose in the context of a jury instruction is immaterial. That it is anomalous that this issue is presented in the context of a jury charge. For the determination of whether a prima facie case has been made out is a legal one for the court. Although the appellant raised this point for the first time in her opening brief on appeal (it was not raised in the district court and hence arguably waived as a possible basis for reversal). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></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="733"></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="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7219a.html">BARBOUR MARTIN W. V. MERRILL, MARK H.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-3063.htm">97-3063 -- GUDENKAUF V. STAUFFER COMMUNICATIONS INC. -- 09/29/1998<BR></A><BR> Alleging that she was terminated in violation of several federal statutes. Gudenkauf was motivated in part by her pregnancy. That she would have been terminated in any event. The district court held she was entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs. Gudenkauf alleged that her termination was the result of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Gudenkauf was not a prevailing party entitled to a fee because she had obtained no relief. Gudenkauf had failed to provide proof in support of her fee claims and that the amounts requested were grossly excessive. <p> The district court rejected Stauffer's argument that Ms. Gudenkauf was not a prevailing party and its argument that Ms. Gudenkauf is not entitled to a fee in any event because she obtained only a technical victory. Stauffer argues that the fee award was excessive in view of the fact the Ms. We first address Stauffer's claim that the district court should have followed the Supreme Court's analysis in <em>Farrar</em> and denied any award of attorney's fees based on Ms. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR> The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></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="730"></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="730"></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="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0257p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict for the employer in an age discrimination case. The main issue we are asked to decide is whether the district court committed reversible error by including instructions in its charge to the jury that replicated the prima facie case and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR> The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case. </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/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="728"></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-7.gif" ALT="728"></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="728"></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-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0680n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Michael White who was also African American hired Watson as a Project Coordinator in the City's Department of Personnel ( </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/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-7.gif" ALT="728"></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="726"></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="726"></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-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021465.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that she was demoted from the position of assistant principal to teacher because she spoke out against race discrimination (her free speech claims) and because of her race (her discrimination claims). We conclude that Love Lane has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was demoted in retaliation for her speech. We also conclude that Martin is not entitled. I. Love Lane is employed by the Winston Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education. From 1988 until 1998 she was an assistant principal at four middle and elementary schools. She was told that her strongest skills were in the areas of communication and problem solving. Where Martin said </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/991147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold sufficient evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether the City's articulated nondiscriminatory reason for termination was a pretext from which racial bias can clearly be inferred. This judgment follows from the wellrecognized proposition that in summary judgment cases the nonmoving party is entitled to all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the record. F. & Will. The bulk of the evidence is testimony of two people ­ the appellant and the supervisor ­ along with internal investigations that were based in large part on the supervisor's characterization of disputed events. We explore the record in terms of whether the appellant's alleged insubordination is disputed and a jury could reasonably find the appellee's reason for termination was pretext for racial discrimination. Because appellant's retaliation and discrimination claim are factually intertwined. Our discussion of the record for each claim will overlap. The Program was to be staffed by a supervisor and four juvenile diversion specialists who would be located in various police precincts throughout the City to work with at risk youth as an alternative to the court system. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></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-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/94-9121.ma2.html">DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Davis v. 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></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="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/94-9121.ma2.html">DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Davis v. 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></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-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1995.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Appellant Tara Gorski was employed by the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></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="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/97-1381.htm">97-1381 -- DAVOLL V. WEBB -- 10/25/1999<BR></A><BR> The remaining ADA claims were tried to a jury. Escobedo are all former Denver police officers who were injured in the line of duty and forced to retire due to Denver's policy forbidding disabled police officers from transferring into other vacant positions in the city government. Most of these employees are enrolled in one of two personnel systems: the Classified Service. Which is composed of police officers and firefighters. 500 of which are for full time employment. The Career Service system was set up by a charter which the voters of Denver approved. Candidates that do so are then tested. If the request is granted. There is also a list for those Career Services employees who meet the qualifications and wish to be promoted to the vacant position. Classified Service employees are not permitted to transfer into the Career Service. Must have an oral interview. Police officers that are separated under honorable circumstances may be reemployed without competing with the general applicant pool. <p> According to the city. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></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="724"></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="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033553p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although we are not persuaded by all of Armstrong's arguments. Armstrong became a full time shipping and receiving clerk.3 Richard Kraus became Armstrong's immediate There are three appellees in this case: the Hospital. The appellees hereafter will collectively be referred to simply as 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://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="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011648A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the victim of severe or pervasive sex based harassment in her workplace at Scollon Productions. Because there 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://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="722"></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="722"></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="722"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-3160.htm">99-3160 -- KENDRICK V. PENSKE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC. -- 08/08/2000<BR></A><BR> Kendrick ( </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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUyNzItY3YucGRm/05-5272-cv.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) erred in dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's claims of racial discrimination on the ground that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not prohibit discriminatory conduct occurring while a plaintiff is outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Is limited to covering </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/2000/08/99-3160a.htm">99-3160A -- KENDRICK V. PENSKE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. -- 08/11/2000<BR></A><BR> 2000 is amended to include an additional citation on page 19 of the slip opinion. 451 (10th Cir. 1995) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A294DE38BC83F75B88257051005488B8/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Kamehameha Schools have operated as the charitable legacy of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The Kamehameha Schools give preference to students who are of native Hawaiian ancestry. Attendance at the Kamehameha Schools is effectively limited to those descended from the Hawaiian race. The issue considered here is a significant one in our statutory civil rights law: May a private. Purposefully exclude a student qualified for admission solely because he is not of pure or part aboriginal blood? The parties agree that this is a case of first impression in our circuit. He argues that he was denied entry to the Kamehameha Schools because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. I The facts are not in dispute. Nonsectarian schools which are dispersed among the Hawaiian Islands. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS 8927 The school system was founded in 1887 under a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971543.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. At trial Cooper's supervisor said that Cooper was fired due to poor job performance. Cooper offered evidence that the supervisor's claim was merely pretext for racial discrimination. On appeal Paychex argues that its post trial motions should have been granted because the court erred by: admitting evidence concerning the racial 2 bias of Cooper's former secretary. Paychex also contends that the court's grant of attorneys' fees was excessive and that the jury should not have been instructed on punitive damages. Cooper cross appeals the amount of fees he was granted. Cooper initially was hired as the Field Sales Manager (FSM) for Paychex's Washington district. Cooper was responsible for recruiting. Cooper was an excellent DSM. He was readily available to help sales representatives with technical or sales related questions. Certain Paychex sales representatives said that Cooper was the best DSM they had worked under during their careers at Paychex. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></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-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200601/04-5216b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were David H. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. She was a Grade 11 Program Specialist in the Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity (ODEO). Mergele was Holcomb's immediate supervisor. Holcomb was in transition. Was promoted to Grade 11 Paralegal. Mergele was amenable to Holcomb's request but lacked authority to make the decision. The complaint also alleged the repeated denials of Holcomb's requests to return to ODEO from her DCA detail and the 199899 job evaluation that rated Holcomb's performance as merely </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0092a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paul is a parish of the Roman Catholic Church located within the Catholic Diocese of Toledo. Father Willman is responsible for all religious matters within the parish. She was awarded a full time eighth grade teaching position for the 1994 1995 school year. Cline's employment was governed by the standard St. 2) a statement that the signer will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/98-2328.htm">98-2328 -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPOTUNITY COMMISSION V. HORIZON/CMS HEALTHCARE CORP. -- 07/31/2000<BR></A><BR> 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. <p> 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</strong> <p> 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. <p> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/95-5258.opn.html">LLAMPALLAS V. MINI-CIRCUITS, LAB, INC. (12/28/1998, NO. 95-5258)<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955258.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/95-5258.opn.html">LLAMPALLAS V. MINI-CIRCUITS, LAB, INC. (12/28/1998, NO. 95-5258)<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B59A3A43DA54A9B88256AC5005B2A39/$file/9917350.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings to determine whether equitable considerations excuse Rodriguez's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 13059 BACKGROUND Rodriguez was employed as a delivery truck driver by Airborne for seven years. Until he was terminated in 1995. Rodriguez contends that his attendance problems were caused by his severe mental depression that resulted from the death of his infant son and other family difficulties. Although his supervisors at Airborne were well aware that his absences were caused by his depression and the side effects of his anti depressant medications. Was terminated on December 11. Left blank all questions pertaining to 1 FEHA is California's civil rights statute that proscribes employment discrimination on account of age. He was interviewed that same day by DFEH consultant Victor Aguirre. Explaining that it was the cause of his absences. He told Aguirre that his depression was due to the death of his child and separation from his wife. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></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-7.gif" ALT="720"></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="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/80B97FB14A01E13588256E5A00707CBE/$file/9917350.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings to determine whether equitable considerations excuse Rodriguez's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 13059 BACKGROUND Rodriguez was employed as a delivery truck driver by Airborne for seven years. Until he was terminated in 1995. Rodriguez contends that his attendance problems were caused by his severe mental depression that resulted from the death of his infant son and other family difficulties. Although his supervisors at Airborne were well aware that his absences were caused by his depression and the side effects of his anti depressant medications. Was terminated on December 11. Left blank all questions pertaining to 1 FEHA is California's civil rights statute that proscribes employment discrimination on account of age. He was interviewed that same day by DFEH consultant Victor Aguirre. Explaining that it was the cause of his absences. He told Aguirre that his depression was due to the death of his child and separation from his wife. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955258.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1260.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. *Of the Fifth Circuit. Was not allowed under R.I. P. 50(a)(1) provides: If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard with respect to an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found for that party with respect to that issue. Plaintiff Cyntha Resare was hired by defendant Raytheon Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981502.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2296.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 15. Golder & Miller P.A. was on brief for appellant. Blackwood were on brief for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Gleeson & Corcoran were on brief for appellee. Was employed between 1961 and 1986 by PT/BT. Woods was promoted twice. Bond was terminated for poor performance and Lane was demoted to a non supervisory position. Valentin told Woods that both he and manufacturing manager Ray Shaffer (Woods' direct supervisor) felt that Woods was not performing up to his capability. Woods was injured in a non work related automobile accident. Woods had used all of his medical and vacation leave time and still was unable to return to work. Pursuant to FMI's policy of terminating all employees who are unable to work after the expiration of their leave time. Woods was physically able to return to work. The eight applicants were interviewed by two of FMI's production superintendents. Was arrested by the Massachusetts State Police and terminated from his employment for theft of FMI funds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0246p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was rehired by American in December 2000. Rodriguez was based at FedEx's facility in Romulus. Rodriguez told Adkinson that he (Rodriguez) was interested in becoming a FedEx supervisor. While Rodriguez was taking LAC classes. Rodriguez applied and was twice interviewed for at least one of those positions. McKibbon found Rodriguez to be qualified for the position and claims that he would have hired Rodriguez but for Adkinson's stated concern that Rodriguez's accent and speech pattern would adversely impact Rodriguez's ability to rise through the company ranks. Adkinson replied with disparaging remarks concerning Rodriguez's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></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="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2050.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. He alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race. The following facts are treated as undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment. DeNovellis is a white male of Italian descent. He was sixty six years old at the time he filed this action in 1994. Which was part of HHS. DeNovellis's position was eliminated in an agency reorganization that occurred in the spring of 1991. Was the Regional Administrator (RA) of HDS. Williams was a black male of the age of fifty five when this action was filed. There were racial tensions in the office. There were also ethnic and race related comments around the office that Williams condoned. Why don't you have your people (Mafia) in the North End take care of them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/014203p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges * William Henderson is substituted for his predecessor. Was arrested for dealing drugs at work and was subsequently discharged. Was selling drugs to postal employees inside the South Plainfield post office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1171.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: 1. Suggesting that any remarks by Gonzalez were motivated solely by a concern for plaintiff's health and physical condition. 3. Gonzalez questioned him about his age and made other age related remarks that the jury reasonably could have construed as evincing bias. Was never called to testify at trial Gonzalez's statements comprise potent evidence of age based animus. With whom Lespier & Munoz Noya was on brief. This is a ghost ship of an SELYA. The muted sound of voices through the fog but there is nothing solid to be grasped. Leaving things exactly as they were. Only five are worthy of extended comment.2 These include four evidence oriented propositions. Appellant's final claim is that the lower court erred in doubling the two awards. The standards of review that appertain to a trial court's denial of the usual post trial motions in civil cases are firmly settled. May reverse the denial of such a motion only if reasonable persons could not have reached the conclusion that the jury embraced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></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="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0521n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a tenured professor of Psychology at Shelby State Community College ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EE0FC6A9B47180B0882572EA0052ED7D/$file/0417050.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a member of a small religious group. Noyes claims that she was passed over for a promotion because she does not adhere to the religious beliefs of the Fellowship. That a Fellowship member was promoted instead. When she was laid off. Noyes was passed over for a promotion to the position of Software Development Manager. Is a religious organization whose followers adhere to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1048.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for plaintiff. Learned that she was being paid less than the male heads of the organization's other departments. Defendant MSPCA is a charitable. Was its chief of staff from 1966 until 1989. Marjorie McMillan was first employed by Angell in 1969 and thereafter was employed in various capacities until she left in 1977 to work in private practice. All of the departments were headed by veterinarians. Thornton was responsible for negotiating veterinarians' initial salaries and for setting discretionary annual increases from a fixed amount of funds. Although the department directors were responsible for such tasks as purchasing equipment. When she learned that the salary of a newly hired radiologist was $38. Whose salary at that time was $41. Her salary was $58. Were earning $73. He began by creating job descriptions for each of the department heads in which the list of duties for the head of radiology was substantially the same as those for the other department head positions. Which was substantially larger than that received by any of the other department heads. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1621.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: Cover page. Charnas & Birmingham were on brief. Were on brief. Labor unions have historically SELYA. It is. Inasmuch as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></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="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1552p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brought suit against Scott Paper Company claiming that he was a victim of unlawful racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Scott contends that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that Woodson was terminated in retaliation for filing discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></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="715"></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="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-2102a.htm">97-2102A -- ANAEME V. DIAGNOSTEK, INC. -- 01/06/1999<BR></A><BR> 140 F.3d at 1128 (noting that Supreme Court has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0012p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 02 3898 Joanne Hedrick was born on June 10. Hedrick was diagnosed as having osteoarthritis in her left knee. Hedrick was diagnosed as having and was treated for osteoarthritis in both knees. Nash and expressed her reservations about her ability to return to work as a general duty staff nurse because she was concerned that she would be unable to perform her duties. Joanne has shared with me that she does not believe that she is going to be able to return to bedside nursing. If it was determined that she was able to return to work. She would have. Hedrick asked to be placed upon WRCS's list of employees who claimed to have permanent work restrictions.1 This list was commonly referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315264.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is that Ledbetter may prevail only if she can prove that unlawful discrimination tainted an annual review of her salary made within 180 days of her filling a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Is how Title VII's timely filing requirement applies in this specie of disparate pay cases that is. Because we need not do so to determine whether Goodyear is entitled to the judgment as a matter of law. All we need to do is examine the last salary decision Goodyear made that affected Ledbetter's pay during the limitations period. We have done that and conclude that no reasonable jury could find that the decision was discrimanitorily motivated. Goodyear's Gadsden plant was divided into several discrete units. </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=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="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="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://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7D6F0511D7C0026A88256D2000562D0C/$file/0035999.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER Raad's petition for rehearing is denied. Fairbanks North Star Borough School District's petition for rehearing is granted to clarify the opinion to the following extent: At slip op. page 4382. Is reversed. The district court's grant of summary judgment to the District on Raad's retaliation claim based on her complaints to the EEO counselor is affirmed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Instead alleges that the report to the police was fraudulently made because Raad is a Muslim of Lebanese descent. Raad was suspended RAAD v. Many of these facts are. With area high school principal Andre Layral and was awarded the highest possible rating by the team of principals who interviewed her (i.e. There is no evidence in the summary judgment record that Raad's accent ever interfered with her performance while she served either as a substitute teacher or as a temporary full time teacher in 199293. Raad received numerous requests from full time District teachers that she serve as a substitute teacher in their classes when they were absent. </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.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-11229.0.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. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race. </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/Oct2004/Oct29/03-11229.0.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. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race. </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/unpub/03/03-11229.0.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. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race. </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/07/06/062368P.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="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/003159P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cases were brought by two professors and several administrative staff against the University of Arkansas. In each case the district court1 ruled that the Title VII claims were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. She also claimed that she was subjected to hostile workplace harassment and retaliation and that Arkansas had violated the Constitution and state law. Okruhlik also alleged that she was subjected to more stringent tenure review than her male colleagues. Schilcher alleged that she was discriminated against in terms of her employment. Lunnie and Robinson also alleged that they were retaliated against for filing an EEOC complaint. 5 In each case Arkansas filed a motion to dismiss. Arkansas asserted in addition that the state claims of Okruhlik and Schilcher were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and state immunity and that Schilcher had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court held that the Title VII claims were not barred because Congress had validly abrogated the states's Eleventh Amendment immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0079n-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. 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/006634.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that Wessel's claim was barred by the State's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Wessel was committed to the custody of the Maryland Division of Corrections. All inmates are awarded a certain number of good conduct credits at the outset of their sentences. Completing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2011.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Marla Segovia was hired in 1996 as a salesperson at Teague Strebeck Motors. When she was hired. Or physical conduct relating to an individual's . . . sex </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></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="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/961394P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bevan was promoted to the position of branch manager in Santa Ana. On the recommendation that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></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="711"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-2239.htm">99-2239 -- DEFLON V. DANKA CORP. INC. -- 01/05/2001<BR></A><BR> We AFFIRM.<strong></strong> <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></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-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/03-5356a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. That her discharge was the result of discrimination on the basis of race. That she was retaliated against for engaging in activities that were protected under Title VII. George has proffered evidence by which a reasonable jury could conclude that EPA's stated reasons for her discharge are a pretext for discrimination. The case will therefore be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND Diane George is a black woman originally from Trinidad and Tobago. She was hired by EPA on September 14. George was fired on March 26. Was George's team leader and had direct day to day supervisory 3 responsibility over George. Was not officially classified as a manager. Was the manager of record for both George and Brown. It was Kelly who officially hired and fired George. With the exception of George and an engineer who originally was from Great Britain. All of the employees were from the United States. George was the only probationary employee in the unit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031465p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Raymond Carnation are all former police officers who worked in the 7squad of the 25th District of the Philadelphia Police Department. 3 All three officers are white. We will view the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. We will reverse as we find that these three police officers have raised triable issues as to whether they suffered unlawful retaliation. Michael McKenna (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></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="707"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct96/95-1122.wpd.html">GREENE V. SAFEWAY STORES, INC.<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reverse and remand for a new trial. There is evidence tending to show the following facts: Greene went to work at Safeway as a courtesy clerk in 1957 in McCook. The profit levels in 1986 were discouraging and there was concern then about a hostile takeover attempt. Which was worked on with Kohlberg. Was completed in November 1986. Burd was questioned at trial about Safeway </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/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="704"></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="704"></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="704"></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="704"></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="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F53F340593FE73888256E5A00707D9D/$file/9955448.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. After the verdicts were returned. Remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. She was well qualified for the job. She held degrees in relevant fields and was more experienced as a computer programmer than most of the other members of the PC group. Roger Taylor ( </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//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="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFEC17EC549D71DC88256B2900629026/$file/9955448.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. After the verdicts were returned. Remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. She was well qualified for the job. She held degrees in relevant fields and was more experienced as a computer programmer than most of the other members of the PC group. Roger Taylor ( </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=04-2220.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="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/00-3055.htm">00-3055 -- TOWNSEND V. LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CAUSALTY -- 06/24/2002<BR></A><BR> These motions were denied and the case was submitted to the jury. We also have before us an amicus curiae brief filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-6254.opa.html">HARGETT V. VALLEY FED. SAVINGS BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hargett v. Which was filed before Judge Blackburn. Which was filed before Judge Hancock. Were timely filed with the EEOC.<p> Alpha W. The portion of Judge Blackburn's order granting Valley's Motion for Summary Judgment in which the court held that Hargett's EEOC charge alleging age discrimination was untimely filed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0695n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Williams began working for GE in June 1967 and remained with GE until his position was eliminated on December 26. Williams was Regional Sales Manager in the Power Management The Honorable Thomas A. Williams was notified by his direct supervisor. That GE was removing him from his position as Regional Sales Manager but had an opportunity for him in another division. Williams was 57 years old at that time. He was replaced by David Campbell. Who was 31 years old. Williams declined a position offered by GE that would have involved relocating. Since Williams' pay was reduced. His direct supervisor in the new position was Thomas Bilia. Bilia was required to eliminate one of the three Transmission Leaders under his supervision. Bilia was given complete discretion regarding which employee to terminate. Williams was given notice on October 24. Both of which events he claims were a product of one continuous pattern of age discrimination. 2 Williams filed suit on June 25. The district court entered summary judgment in GE's favor as to the federal and state age discrimination claims premised upon the November 1999 Demotion on the basis that they were time barred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/94-6254.opa.html">HARGETT V. VALLEY FED. SAVINGS BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hargett v. Which was filed before Judge Blackburn. Which was filed before Judge Hancock. Were timely filed with the EEOC.<p> Alpha W. The portion of Judge Blackburn's order granting Valley's Motion for Summary Judgment in which the court held that Hargett's EEOC charge alleging age discrimination was untimely filed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3711_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts No. 04 3711 LLCC is a community college located in Springfield. Who is a Caucasian female. Hiring for the position was governed by LLCC's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1865.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Guillemard</SPAN> were on brief. With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-1239a.htm">97-1239 -- MCGARRY V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO -- 04/29/1999<BR></A><BR> Footnote number one is misnumbered. We need not consider McGarry's claim on <u>Notari</u>/<u>McDonnell Douglas</u> analysis. <p> A copy of the corrected opinion is attached. <p> Sincerely. 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="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963210P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 3 3 was informed that when [the Panel] needed to select a replacement for Edwin Ailts. [the Panel] should advertise the position in a publication of national circulation to reach all persons who might be interested so [the Panel] could have an open. I assumed at that time that he was referring to the Chief Probation Officer position which would be vacated upon my retirement since I had only recently indicated my intention to retire and I was unaware of any other vacant positions. This was a brief conversation with Judge Wolle and the comment was made by him in passing. Ailts that the Administrative Office was recommending an aggressive effort on the part of the COURT to recruit minorities and females as candidates for the Chief Probation Officer position which was becoming vacant. A biweekly publication of the Probation Division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that was circulated nationwide to all probation officers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></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="702"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2205.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 9. Replace </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0451n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was fired from her job in the video department of a Giant Eagle supermarket in Polaris. Arguing that: (1) white employees were treated differently than she. Lue Harris was hired by the Giant Eagle supermarket in Polaris. She was also given an employee handbook. Harris was asked by the store director to manage the store's video department while usual manager Kim Henry was on maternity leave. Harris met with Henry so Henry could explain what the video department manager's responsibilities were. The employee was supposed to write the item number on a receipt. Which was placed in an envelope on the counter in the video department. Harris and Henry indicated that the typical procedure was for employees to record the fact that they were checking out a video by scanning the bar code on the video and assigning it to the 2 No. 04 3666 Harris v. That employees were subject to late charges. The handbook states that violation of the employee rental policy </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0998p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This matter is an appeal and a cross appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2223.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nevares and Associates P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. For appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0743p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the order of the district court dismissing the appellant's sexual discrimination and harassment claims and assessing the jury costs against her. We will affirm the order of the district court dismissing the balance of the case. Is an investigator in the Pittsburgh Area Office of the EEOC.[fn1] Although she was hired in 1974 by that office. They have been dismissed from the action. Nelson and Butler are the director of the EEOC's Pittsburgh Area Office and the director of the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office. Butler is Nelson's superior. Nelson is Spain's superior. Have a history of passing over her for promotions to GM 13 and GM 14 level positions in favor of allegedly lesser qualified male African American applicants. It is undisputed that in 1985. The crux of Spain's sexual discrimination and harassment claims is that over the years rumors developed in the Pittsburgh office that Spain and Nelson were having an affair. Or leaving the office.[fn4] Spain charges that because it was improper for Nelson to solicit the loans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1552_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is black. Is employed by the Illinois Waste Management and Research Center (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/98-1172.htm">98-1172 -- HOLMES V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO -- 05/07/1999<BR></A><BR> Holmes is a sixty four year old African American woman hired by the University as an Associate Professor and Chairperson of the school's Communications Department in June 1992. Holmes' term as Chairperson of the Communications Department was short lived. The University removed her from the position based on complaints that: (1) she was not pursuing a course of development for the department the other faculty members agreed with. (2) she was not listening to input from other faculty members. (3) she was not performing the research and publication necessary to achieve tenure. (4) the department was suffering from significant internal strife under her leadership. Holmes asserts she was the victim of numerous instances of age and race discrimination throughout the time of her employment. <p> In August 1996. Holmes says she overheard and her own impression that the University was recommending her reappointment with the understanding she would retire before achieving tenure.</li> <li>A colleague's self deprecating comments about his own age. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021485.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Any one of these errors standing alone may have been harmless. The errors were substantially prejudicial to Kozlowski's case. Kozlowski was employed as football coach at Bethel by the Hampton City School Board under one year contracts that were annually renewed by the Board. He testified that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1435p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm in part. I. Albert Lawrence was hired by Citizens First National Bank of New Jersey. In 1985 he was promoted to the position of Senior Vice President/Chief Investment Officer. Lawrence was injured in a car accident and sustained severe back injuries. Lawrence was terminated for sub standard performance and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2670.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which she also alleged was in retaliation for her having filed an EEOC charge. (3) found that Ajayi could not establish that similarly situated individuals outside of the protected class were treated more favorably with respect to her remaining failure topromote and discriminatory discharge claims. (4) found that Ajayi had no direct evidence of retaliatory discharge nor evidence to suggest that Aramark's stated legitimate reasons for terminating Ajayi were pretextual. Ajayi was an unexceptional employee who was terminated for violating company vacation policy and for dissatisfactory job performance. When she was hired to work as a food service supervisor at one of Aramark's Chicago. Ajayi's duties were to supervise the cafeteria cashiers and ensure that the 111 cafeteria was ready for business. Ajayi was twice written up for insubordination by her supervisor. Ajayi received mediocre marks (in six out of twelve categories she received a two on the five point scale) with her evaluator observing that Ajayi was unmotivated and had poor relations with her supervisors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/05-7044a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Joseph D. Circuit Judge: After he was terminated for a 2 purported lack of candor. Whether it was due to a lack of candor. He was promoted in 1996 and served as Distribution Project Engineer. One of the people Mastro supervised was a probationary employee. Harsley was arrested and jailed after he confronted an ex girlfriend and threatened to kill her and burn down her home and place of employment. He was absent from work beginning Tuesday. The date Mastro learned Harsley was actually in jail is the crux of the dispute that eventually led to Mastro's termination. Harsley claims he was always candid about his circumstances. Requesting two days of vacation because he was in jail. Telling Mastro that he was still incarcerated and needed more vacation time. Contends he was unaware Harsley was in jail until Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning of that week. He did not know at the time that Harsley was in jail. Nor did he have reason to suspect as much. Asked Harsley if he was in jail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031005.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </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/1999/04/97-1239.htm">97-1239 -- MCGARRY V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN -- 04/29/1999<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-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://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/013926P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Dustrol is a paving maintenance company located in Lincoln. Although Mohr was occasionally reproached about her performance ­ e.g. Driving too fast and not doing her share of the more tedious signholding work ­ she received raises on a regular basis and there is nothing to suggest that she was not considered. Was assigned to the heating crew. Sanchez told her she would not be on his crew that year because he was not going to have any females on his crew. Dustrol's hiring and assignment decisions were officially made by Marc Heald and Harlan Baehr. They were aware that Sanchez did not want Mohr assigned to the heating crew for the 1999 season. Mohr was initially told there was no work available for her that season. Mohr argues that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether she was discriminated against in failing to be rehired for the heating crew and whether she was treated differently with respect to training. Summary judgment is appropriate only if </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://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-6.gif" ALT="696"></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-6.gif" ALT="696"></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-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B44C908CAE7E55488256D6F0006F6E0/$file/0135847.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Li Li Manatt is an American citizen of Chinese descent. Because Manatt's hostile work environment claim and one of her retaliation claims are time barred under Title VII. We must decide whether such claims are cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Manatt overheard a conversation in which coworkers Barbara Green and Vincent Correia were laughing and saying </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//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-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/100DE273B1D5F01D88256CF60060AEAF/$file/0035999.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Instead alleges that the report to the police was fraudulently made because Raad is a Muslim of Lebanese descent. Raad was suspended from teaching within the District for one year. With area high school principal Andre Layral and was awarded the highest possible rating by the team of principals who interviewed her (i.e. Many of these facts are. There is no evidence in the summary judgment record that Raad's accent ever interfered with her performance while she served either as a substitute teacher or as a temporary full time teacher in 199293. Raad received numerous requests from full time District teachers that she serve as a substitute teacher in their classes when they were absent. Was not informed that she had been placed in the hiring pool until the end of August. Between the time when Raad resubmitted Kerr Carpenter's recommendation and the time when the District informed her that she was under consideration for a 1992 93 position. Although Raad produced evidence that she was highly qualified. She was not hired to fill the position. 4384 RAAD v. </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/200314909.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The key issue in this appeal is whether an admission by the decisionmaker that a female employee 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=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-6.gif" ALT="696"></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-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1322p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They were subject to a hostile work environment. (2) that Aman was constructively discharged. (3) that Johnson was discharged in retaliation for protesting discrimination at Cort Furniture. (4) that black employees were paid less than similarly situated white employees. We will reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment as to Aman's and Johnson's hostile environment. Will affirm its judgment as to their unequal pay claims. Were hired by Cort Furniture's Philadelphia district office in 1986. Aman was hired as a bookkeeper and Johnson was hired as a credit manager. They were subjected to an atmosphere of racial contempt and harassment. Johnson claims that she was discharged in retaliation for complaining about Cort Furniture's discriminatory practices. Aman and other black employees were referred to as </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/May1996/96a1310p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That it should have dismissed his VEVRA claim for money damages for lack of jurisdiction. We will affirm in part. I. Antol is employed by the Defense Logistics Agency as a Budget Assistant. He is also a veteran of the United States Army. There were two positions available in this job classification. Who each hold a college degree but are not disabled veterans. Antol was informed on November 18. Claiming that he was not selected for the promotion based on his disability. Antol contends that the Agency discriminated against him because he is disabled and violated VEVRA when. He also contends generally that the Agency did not select him for the position because he is disabled. Because the two successful candidates were female. We view the evidence de novo and in the light most favorable to the non moving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and. Whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the evidence is merely colorable or not significantly probative. </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/Mar1995/95a0999p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </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/1998/12/97-1120.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-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/94-4769.opa.html">ISENBERGH V. KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPER SALES, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isenbergh v. Was the manager of KRNS's Miami sales office. Was the manager of MMTM's Miami sales office. Both were candidates. Was apparently between Isenbergh and Malloy. The two rankings were averaged to obtain each candidate's overall score.<p> When the nine candidates who had worked at KRNS or MMTM for more than six months were ranked according to this system. Including one who was sixty three years old </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A9AA31F4AAD1F6888256AEF005A9B4A/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although much of what happened here was characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F8B414C76D42798E88256E5A00707D26/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although much of what happened here was characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></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-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1104.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hoag & Eliot were on brief for appellant. Rizzotti and Craig and Macauley were on brief for appellee. Because we conclude that the motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted with respect to some of Lattimore's claims and because it appears that the jury's verdict may have rested on those claims. Was hired by Polaroid in 1977 as a machine operator. His supervisor was Bill Mitchell. The restriction was renewed each year until 1989 and. Lattimore was assigned to light duty work. There is the door. He was seen by Dr. Hillier provided Lattimore with the first in a series of reports stating that Lattimore was disabled from returning to work. An employee is eligible for STD benefits if medical reports submitted by the employee's treating physician support the conclusion that the employee is totally disabled. 3 the results of which will be deemed conclusive with respect to the employee's ability to work. Approximately twelve weeks after Lattimore was accorded STD status. Hillier indicated that Lattimore was improving and should be able to return to work on July 24 if an examination scheduled for July 21 showed the progress that Dr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/94-4769.opa.html">ISENBERGH V. KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPER SALES, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isenbergh v. Was the manager of KRNS's Miami sales office. Was the manager of MMTM's Miami sales office. Both were candidates. Was apparently between Isenbergh and Malloy. The two rankings were averaged to obtain each candidate's overall score.<p> When the nine candidates who had worked at KRNS or MMTM for more than six months were ranked according to this system. Including one who was sixty three years old </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3448A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nanda was employed as an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University's Chicago campus. Nanda's efforts to reverse the decision through the University's grievance process were unsuccessful. The individual defendants and the University moved to dismiss Count II on the ground that the named administrators were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971667.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Published opinion filed 2/19/99 is vacated. She was not issued a firearm until almost one year later. VUU was not responsible for this delay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></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-6.gif" ALT="694"></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-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3448.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nanda was employed as an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University's Chicago campus. Nanda's efforts to reverse the decision through the University's grievance process were unsuccessful. The individual defendants and the University moved to dismiss Count II on the ground that the named administrators were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944769.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the manager of KRNS's Miami sales office. Forty four Both were years old. Was the manager of MMTM's Miami sales office. candidates. Was apparently between Isenbergh and Malloy. The two rankings were averaged to obtain each candidate's overall score. When the nine candidates who had worked at KRNS or MMTM for more than six months were ranked according to this system. Three managers over age fifty including one who was sixty three years old finished higher than Isenbergh. Isenbergh was He offered the chance to interview for a sales position in Miami. chose to take early retirement instead. Isenbergh testified that the atmosphere at his interview was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1473.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bates was on brief for the Ellenwoods. Was on brief for the State of Maine. McGill were on brief for Exxon Shipping Company. Was removed from his position as chief engineer of another Exxon oil tanker. Relying primarily on the company's previous written policy that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTczNjZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7366_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Submits a 1 Although defendant is now </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE1MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1506-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which in this case was the plaintiff appellant crossappellee A. Sista was employed by defendant appellee cross appellant CDC Ixis North America. Sista was promoted by CDC at the behest of his direct supervisor. Nothing was done to address Sista's complaints. The telephone conversation was recorded because it related to CDC's trading desk. Though neither Sista nor Monaghan was aware of Mehta's presence. During a discussion of a transaction on which Mehta was working. Nathani asked him whether he had threatened Mehta or arranged </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0226p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jordan's racial discrimination claims were dismissed by the district court via summary judgment. P. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0741p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over Ortiz's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. 000 voters) were slated to be purged from Philadelphia's registration rolls for failing to vote. No appeal was taken. This request was denied by order of the district court on October 6. Ortiz's appeals were dismissed for failure to prosecute. A four day trial was held to determine whether a permanent injunction should issue. Recognizing that African American and Latino voters are purged at disproportionately higher rates than their white counterparts. A. A district court's conclusion that a challenged electoral practice has a discriminatory effect is a question of fact subject to review for clear error. 79 (1986) (recognizing that determination of whether or not political process is equally open to minority voters </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0462p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (Keane) terminated her employment because she was pregnant. I. BACKGROUND Keane is a Massachusetts corporation authorized to do business in the State of Ohio. Ohio and was an employee of defendant Keane. SG&A Recruiters are responsible for recruiting employees for Keane's non technical sales and high level management positions. Each Recruiter was primarily assigned to cover a specific region within Keane's North America Branch operations. Asmo was assigned to Keane's midwest region. Keane was affected by this slowdown. 2001 was also the day that Asmo learned she was pregnant with twins. Sometime in October 2001 (the exact date and period of the month is disputed). Around the time the Metro acquisition was completed in November 2001. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3471.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BASF Corporation is headquartered in Mount Olive. Is comprised of 19 operating units. One of which is devoted to the company's styrenics production ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1468.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MacKenzie contends she was subjected to a hostile work environment and constructively discharged from her employment. Was 64 years old.(1) She began work with the City at the Denver Health and Hospital Authority in March 1986. MacKenzie was expected to answer telephones in a professional and courteous manner. 1997. (2) The ID Clinic provides heath care to patients who are HIV positive or suffer from AIDS. <hr> the clinic with respect. Her evaluations suggested MacKenzie's declining performance was tied to an apparent increase in rudeness toward staff and patients. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-1085.htm">98-1085 -- HENO V. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY -- 04/03/2000<BR></A><BR> Judgment was entered against Sprint. Remand for a new trial. <p> <center><u>Background</u></center> <p> Plaintiff Andrea Heno is a woman of mixed racial background (Creole and other) who principally identifies herself as a black person. Was promoted to senior sales representative. Her immediate supervisor in the sales department was Don Libby. Ordway was selected for the position. Heno was away from the office on sick leave and short term disability. The only issues to go to the jury were the Title VII failure to promote claim against Sprint. They determined that race was not a motivating factor in Mr. He was not liable. The district court determined that it was inappropriate to give an award for both Title VII and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></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="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011031.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. This action was commenced in 1997. That deadline was later extended to June 29. Their evidence was sufficient to survive summary judgment. More than a week after defendants moved for summary judgment and almost two years after the amended complaint was filed. The district court then concluded that the class certification motion was moot. The Supreme Court established the familiar framework under which most employment discrimination claims are analyzed: a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of discrimination by establishing that (1) he is in a protected class. (3) he was qualified for the position. (4) he was rejected for the position under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The plaintiff must then show that the employer's proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination. Are governed by the analytical framework established by the Supreme Court in Teamsters. The plaintiffs must establish that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcxODBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7180_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: BACKGROUND This is an employment discrimination case. Known for its innovative hair cutting techniques. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/043345P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wallace's immediate supervisor was the Company's city manager for Kansas City. Kjar's immediate supervisor was the regional manager for the midwest region. Mierendorf's immediate supervisor was Stephen Duffy. Wallace was the least senior station manager at the location. Kjar about any of these incidents. 2 The Company's sexual harassment policy stated that an employee could complain to the supervisor of an alleged harasser if the employee was not comfortable complaining directly to his or her own supervisor or directly to the harasser. Mierendorf testified in his deposition that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3818_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Over the next few years some of her duties were reassigned to others. Believing that this was the result of race discrimination. Her position was abolished. She was assigned to another Executive Secretary I post with a different supervisor and required to apply anew for a flextime schedule. When that accommodation was refused. She took vacation or sick leave each day from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. until those benefits were exhausted. The parties agreed to have a magistrate judge resolve their dispute. Is not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></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-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/00-15708.opn.html">SMITH V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS (11/27/2001, NO. 00-15708)<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1776p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bayonne is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3790011C905DAAB88825712B00047719/$file/0416087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a Title VII Civil Rights case.1 It requires us to decide whether AT&T. Discriminates in violation of Title VII against women who took pregnancy related leaves before 1979. 1979 was the year when the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). An AT&T employee on pregnancy leave was not awarded service credit for the entire period of her 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Are not limited to. Complain that the company's failure to give employees full service credit for their pre PDA leaves affects their eligibility for and computation of retirement benefits and is therefore a present violation of the PDA. Elizabeth Snyder were long time employees of Pacific Telephone and Telegraph (PT&T). A Bell System operating company that was transferred to AT&T when the former Bell system was broken up in 1984. The NCS date consists of an employee's original hire date and adjustments for periods during which no service credit is accrued. Periods of leave or other breaks in service that are not credited result in a later NCS date than the employee's original hire date. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015708.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-15708.opn.html">SMITH V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS (11/27/2001, NO. 00-15708)<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-3291.htm">97-3291 -- BUTLER V. CITY OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE KANSAS -- 04/06/1999<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant City of Prairie Village. All of the individual defendants were employed by. Was the Mayor. Vernon was the City Administrator. Defendant Carol Pendelton was a member of the city council and chair of the Policy and Services Committee. Robnett was the director of the Public Works Department. <p> During his employment with the City. Plaintiff's employment was terminated on January 27. Salary range of the new position were similar to those of Plaintiff's former position. <p> In this appeal. Plaintiff claims that the district court should not have entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants on his claims that he was terminated in violation of the First Amendment. He argues that summary judgment was improper on his ADA claim of discrimination because he has raised genuine issues of material fact. Two incidents occurred which Plaintiff claims are relevant to this dispute. Plaintiff's testimony was not favorable to the City and. I understand that is the case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-15306.man.html">ADAMS V. FLORIDA POWER CORP. (7/5/2001, NO. 99-15306)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun25/03-10803-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that he was terminated from his managerial position at Jack In The Box. Because Rachid established a prima facie case and because issues of material fact concerning JIB's proffered reason for terminating Rachid are disputed. Summary judgment was improper and this case is REVERSED and REMANDED. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Rachid was employed by JIB from October 1995 to February 2001. Who was 52 years old. A transfer was never approved and Rachid was fired. I am concerned about the increased number of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></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="687"></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="687"></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-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-15306.man.html">ADAMS V. FLORIDA POWER CORP. (7/5/2001, NO. 99-15306)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962349.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> See 29 U.S.C.A.§§ 621 634 (West Supp. 1997).1 Halperin argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because he established a prima facie case of discrimination under both the ADA and the ADEA and because his employer's legitimate. Nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating his employment were pretextual. We conclude that Halperin is neither a qualified individual with a disability nor the victim of intentional age discrimination. 255 (1986) (holding that the evidence of the non moving party is to be believed and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in his favor). Abacus Technology Corporation (Abacus) is a research and consulting firm based in Chevy Chase. Halperin was hired by Abacus to work as a computer consultant on a contract with the General Services Administration. Finding that Halperin was temporarily disabled. Halperin was able to return to work. His direct supervisor's supervisor.3 Suskin stated that she was surprised to see Halperin because she neither knew that he was coming back to work nor had any work for him to do at the time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></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-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3289E17C794ACECA88256D7A006C895A/$file/0136130.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that he was retaliated against and ultimately fired due to his Chinese ethnicity and nationality. A Zhang's name is found in the record as both Zhang Wei. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The factual recitation herein is taken from the evidence presented to the jury. Zhang was hired to join American Gem after the takeover. Which was signed by Al Reitzer. Zhang's position was vice president of American Gem and general manager of its Pacific Gem division. Zhang testified that although his division was integral to the new company's operations. He was initially offered a lower salary than the Caucasian vice presidents of the acquired companies. Zhang was promoted to president of the Pacific Gem division. Appellant Harry Lees was hired as president and CEO of MCMI. Jim Hilger was hired as the Chief Financial Officer of American Gem. Zhang presented evidence that he was discriminated against by American Gem's management. Witnesses testified that Lees told them that he distrusted Zhang because he was Chinese. That Lees suspected that Zhang was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-4026.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Peters was employed by Renaissance as a Loss Prevention Officer ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></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="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-3163.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is an appeal from a summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. We affirm the district court's grant of summary (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Was fired from her job as a janitor for Defendant Garage Door Group. The district court's jurisdiction was predicated on 28 U.S.C. 1331. II Statement of Facts Plaintiff Janet Howard was hired by Defendant Garage Door Group. Howard was reassigned to a janitorial position for health reasons. Howard was injured on the job and. She was assigned temporary light duty <hr> for two to three weeks during which her mopping duties were assumed by other employees. At that meeting Howard was again informed that she must resume her mopping or be terminated. Howard stated she was physically unable to do so as the industrial mops usually utilized by the janitors were too heavy. Howard suggested that she be allowed to either use a lighter mop or have her mopping duties permanently assigned to another person. No suitable position for Howard was identified. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0277n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an employment discrimination case. The ODJFS is the sole defendant on appeal. 1 * and equal protection and due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The decision of the district court will be affirmed. I. BACKGROUND The facts are. His supervisors were Guy Edmunds (Edmunds). The BBM was a department of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (OBES). The OBES performed this function internally and was. Wilson was a licensed real estate broker. The Bureau of General Services (BGS) which was a department within the Ohio Department of Human Services (ODHS). VenoGolden was essentially Lee's counterpart. The Director of Job and Family Services is given authority to restructure the ODJFS. The Director's actions are not subject to appeal to the State Personnel Board of Review. Or demote all ODJFS employees who are not subject to collective bargaining. To a barganing unit classification if the Director determines that such a classification is appropriate. If any employee in the E 1 pay range is to be assigned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314750.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His discrimination and termination claims were based on the same facts. He claims that he was reassigned to another post shortly thereafter but given inadequate training and resources to perform satisfactorily at his new position. While Chappell's EEO complaints were pending. He was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in January 2000. He was terminated in July 2000. Although his discrimination claims were still being considered by the EEOC. He is entitled to appeal to the MSPB. Although the MSPB does not have Congress created the MSPB in 1978 as part of the Civil Service Act. MSPB review of adverse employment actions was designed to protect federal employees from widespread politically motivated terminations whenever the party in power changed hands. 1258 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 1 jurisdiction over discrimination claims that are not related to adverse actions. Chappell challenged the fairness of the performance reviews and alleged that his termination was based in part on discrimination and retaliation for formal EEO complaints regarding the PIP. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></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-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/001089P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cronquist alleged that the City's disciplinary justification was pretext and that her employment was terminated because of sex discrimination and retaliation for an earlier lawsuit she brought against the City. Was promoted to Sergeant in 1991. Cronquist's original supervisor in the Backgrounds Unit was Lieutenant David Martens. She was the subject of a harassment complaint by one of her subordinates. Cronquist's complaint against Captain Berg was not sustained. Officers Brotkowski and Swanson's complaints against Cronquist were sustained. Alleging that her punishment for the Brotkowski and Swanson complaints was motivated by gender and in retaliation for her successful 1991 sexual harassment suit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1685p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the district court's order awarding attorney's fees pursuant to section 706(k) of Title VII to L.B. We will reverse. Jo Ann Wilson was hired in the company's Houston office. She was later promoted to credit manager. Was promoted to Assistant Treasurer in December 1987. Minor's promotion created a vacancy in his former position that Wilson was interested in filling. The corporate credit manager is responsible for the implementation of the company's credit policies and therefore had to possess the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></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="683"></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-6.gif" ALT="683"></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-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7122a.html">LYNDA DUNAWAY V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS<BR></A><BR> McCall argued the cause for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun30/03-10956-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was born December 31. Roberson was reclassified from SEA to Mainframe Programmer II ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2950_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After her employment was terminated on August 9. Burks is of African American and Hispanic descent. Burks ultimately was hired and appointed to the position of program manager in November 2001. She was required to complete a probationary period of six months before assuming permanent employee status. Traska was a Unit Supervisor in the Bureau of Transit and was Ms. Forlenza was a Planning and Analysis Administrator at WDOT and was Ms. Soon after she was hired. Her disability information already should have been on file. She was invited to the WDOT chair lab to select a chair that would accommodate her disability. Plans for the raised work station were not approved until May 2002. The work station was not completed prior to Ms. Burks believes that the untimeliness of these accommodations is evidence of disability discrimination. 1 In her appellate brief. Traska was not a supervisor during the time that Ms. Burks was employed at WDOT. Traska was her immediate supervisor. To the extent that it is material. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></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-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/149A9B529B5319598825714C00552F1C/$file/0356412.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. Equitable Tolling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-3324.htm">98-3324 -- SHINWARI V. RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT CO. -- 06/08/2000<BR></A><BR> Affirm.<strong></strong> <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1683p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge In recognition of the fact that discrimination against the physically and mentally disabled was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/46EBE96D272A653488256AC5005B9393/$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-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0488n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Manuel was promoted to staff administrator. Manuel complained to several Honda vice presidents that Honda was discriminating against blacks in promotions by downgrading their evaluations. Manuel transferred to an associate relations position at the East Liberty Plant but was then transferred to an administration position at the Marysville Plant. Manuel was given a performance rating of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9207DDDAECF6B3DC88256C70005C50CF/$file/0115544.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: Debtor Norman Majewski incurred large medical expenses at the hospital where he was employed. Now contends that the firing violated the bankruptcy code provision barring termination of an individual who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/061156P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Twymon was initially supervised by Laura Gillund. Whose office was in Minneapolis. Twymon alleges racial animus and retaliation were the real reasons for her termination. An employee informed Cerwick that Twymon was using her work computer to assist a co worker with his master's thesis As in many employment discrimination cases. There are a number of factual disputes. Wells Fargo's computer policy states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></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-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1224.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schnitzler & Krupman were on briefs for appellants. P.A. were on brief for appellee. Morrison alleged that she was subjected by Carleton and the other defendants to sexual harassment. A United States Magistrate Judge presided over the jury trial and subsequently determined the various non jury issues. 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (West 1993). 2 (Count I) and sex (gender) discrimination (Count II) were presented to the jury but only insofar as these claims were based upon conduct occurring on or after November 21. The ADA disability discrimination claim (Count IV) was likewise presented to the jury. 1991 conduct did not go to the jury but rather were reserved for later decision by the magistrate judge. In determining that Morrison was not disabled. Other relief were denied. Plaintiff's own motion for new trial was also denied. Morrison was hired by the Company to work as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></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-6.gif" ALT="681"></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-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2127.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs direct us to no fewer than thirty rulings they argue were mistaken and require reversal. 1021 04.(2) Most pertinent among the district court's rulings for our purposes is the disposition of Ms. Underlying them all is the fact that. Frank explained that there were rumors circulating about Ms. Williams refused to resign and asked for a written explanation why she was being fired. Frank allegedly responded that she did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></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-6.gif" ALT="681"></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-6.gif" ALT="681"></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-6.gif" ALT="678"></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-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5CFF0E7D0509F80388256BFA0058BFC1/$file/0115951.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 is hereby ordered amended as follows: 10122 ARAGON v. Because the sample size is so small . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0554n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jennifer Ellen Suits was fired on September 3. When she was five and one half months pregnant. Heil asserts that the termination was part of a business related reduction in workforce. Suits was hired by Heil as a Law and Human Resources Associate. Plaintiff was an efficient and productive employee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-7122a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief was Nicole R. That she failed to show that she was a permanent employee. Rather than an at will employee. Because the record indicates that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Dunaway was discharged because of gender or national origin. Union elections were held. These prob lems were all rectified or explained to his satisfaction. Bosley told her she was terminated from employ ment. The court found that Dunaway had not estab lished a prima facie case of discrimination because she had failed to show that she was qualified for the position of Payroll Supervisor in light of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0932p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the March 9. Because the record reflects a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether J & H's asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging Sempier are pretextual. We will reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of J & H. Sempier avers that no one advised him that his performance was less than satisfactory nor did anyone bring to his attention any deficiencies in his performance of his functions. The firm's chairman who was Sempier's friend and had been instrumental in Sempier being elected as CFO. States that he was generally pleased with Sempier's work. Johnson sought to have Sempier replaced. When Sempier was elected. Sempier was unanimously reelected to the Board in 1989. Who is fourteen years younger than Sempier. Who is four years younger than Sempier. J & H had instituted an early retirement program to retire </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0246p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are Sabbath observant Orthodox Jews. It is undisputed that they were not independent contractors. The Goldmeiers are also Sabbath observant Orthodox Jews and as such followed a religious prohibition against working from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. It did require the presence of a licensed insurance agent at all times and the Goldmeiers were the only such agents in their office. Allstate employees were advised that failure to comply with the new policy could lead to discipline. When the Goldmeiers' children were young. At this time outside help was not acceptable to the Goldmeiers for multiple reasons. The Goldmeiers would have been responsible for the performance of the office even in their absence and they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0153n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Demoted her after she informed Musashi that she was pregnant and was expecting a problem pregnancy. Because she has met her burden in providing evidence that Musashi's proffered reason for her demotion was pretextual. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. I. DeBoer was an employee at Musashi's Battle Creek. DeBoer was a temporary employee. DeBoer's employment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1579.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> C:\My Documents\01 1579.189.wpd
678 OPINION/ORDER
Although there is no express claim under the Arizona Civil Rights Act. Which have the same framework of analysis. INC. wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Arizona state law.2 The district court found that Bodett was unable to rebut the evidence her employer. As no distinct contract claim was made in the initial complaint. We will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.
678 OPINION/ORDER
Byrd was one of six plaintiffs who alleged that Defendant Appellee Dillard's. Byrd's claims are grounded in the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Byrd was the only plaintiff to appeal. Only her claims are at issue. That the store was eliminating AASM positions and that the store had no intention of ever employing AASMs again. She was entitled to fill another managerial position in the store or take severance pay. Byrd recorded her reaction to this news in some typewritten notes: This happens after I was told [that] the store could not afford any AASM[]s ... because they were not making their figures. Seems to me [that] I was lied to!!! As soon as I find out there are two new AASM[s] in place[. ] I will file a lawsuit against Dillard[']s. This lawsuit will be for [a]ge discrimination and [w]age discrimination. Was hired a month later. Byrd testified that she heard Poole say that Winters was
678 OPINION/ORDER
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
676 99-6420 -- GRIFFIS V. CITY OF NORMAN -- 10/17/2000

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff appellant Patricia Ann Griffis appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. She was the undersheriff matron. Because white police officers complained they could not understand her because she had the

676 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were David H. With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment against Vickers on all her claims and affirm its decision that she was not the victim of illegal retaliation and discrimination. We also reverse its decision that the Merit Systems Protection Board (
676 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
676 OPINION/ORDER
With whom Vicente & Cuebas was on brief. Odell & Calabria was on brief. In this age discrimination suit brought by a plant manager whose employment was terminated when he was 55 years old. That he had not overcome Suttle Caribe's articulated non discriminatory reason for the termination with evidence sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to conclude that the termination was motivated by age discrimination. Suttle Caribe has said that the termination was not an issue of performance but was instead the result of a business restructuring plan that involved the elimination of the plant manager position. Suttle Caribe has claimed that the termination was based on the plaintiff's job performance. Suttle Caribe has said that violations of company policy and insubordination were the reasons for the termination. While the termination of the plaintiff's employment may prove to have been innocent of age discrimination. These facts are surely enough to raise genuine issues of material fact that should be left to the jury.
676 OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. His claims were denied by then Chief Judge Black. His appeal to the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit was also denied. Where it was dismissed on summary judgment. Kostishak claimed that his termination was not due to poor work performance. Rather was discrimination. He alleged that the firing 2 was done in retaliation against him because he intended to serve as a witness for another Bankruptcy Court employee who claimed racial discrimination by Judge Mannes. Kostishak also claimed that the firing was discrimination based upon his age (60) and disability (hypertension). Chief Judge Black agreed with Haas that the claim was meritless and wrote a letter to Kostishak in which he explained his findings. He merely sets forth at length the standards for granting summary judgment and then conclusorily asserts that the standards were not met. He never even states what his claims are. Kostishak asserts in his brief that he was pro se below and thus we should be more forgiving than we normally would be before dismissing 3 II.
676 OPINION/ORDER
Juan Pantoja was fired within days of his managers' learning that he had complained about discrimination to the EEOC. He allegedly began complaining to management that his supervisors were mistreating him because he is Hispanic. 2 No. 06 1252 Not long after his termination. Pantoja was promoted from the entry level mechanic's position (M 0) to a higher one (M 3). Cusimano was promoted from the M 2 level to the M 4 level. The specifics of these complaints are in dispute. Pantoja contends that his complaints included allegations that he was being treated badly. That
676 OPINION/ORDER
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.
676 OPINION/ORDER
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 (
674 OPINION/ORDER
This is an interlocutory appeal from the District Court's denial of Viacom's summary judgment motion. Viacom seeks to have James Ruehl's complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (
674 OPINION/ORDER
The district court rejected Long's argument that the release was invalid because it failed to meet specific and detailed requirements of the OWBPA. Was ratified when Long accepted and retained severance benefits paid to him following execution of the release. Because we are convinced that the ratification doctrine should not apply to a waiver of age discrimination claims which is invalid under the OWBPA and that Long should not be required to tender back severance benefits before proceeding with his age discrimination claims. We find that the grant of summary judgment with respect to these claims was inappropriate. We will. We will remand the non ADEA claims for further consideration. Are undisputed. Who was born in 1936. From the early 1980s Long was employed in Sears' Home Improvement Products and Services Division (HIPS). Although his primary responsibility was to sell roofing. Long's job performance was excellent and his earnings. Were in the neighborhood of $100. Sears analyzed the HIPS division's economic performance and concluded that reorganization was warranted.
674 OPINION/ORDER
Was the manager of KRNS's Miami sales office. Was the manager of MMTM's Miami sales office. Both were candidates. Was apparently between Isenbergh and Malloy. The two rankings were averaged to obtain each candidate's overall score. When the nine candidates who had worked at KRNS or MMTM for more than six months were ranked according to this system. Knight Ridder Newspaper 4 including one who was sixty three years old finished higher than Isenbergh. Isenbergh was offered the chance to interview for a sales position in Miami. Isenbergh testified that the atmosphere at his interview was
674 02-3415 -- HILL V. STEVEN MOTORS INC. -- 05/05/2004

We affirm the judgment below.
  1. Background

Whether Steven Motors was entitled to summary judgment is a question of law we review de novo. Croy v. Summary judgment is appropriate

674 OPINION/ORDER
That the EEOC's recognition of such a right violates the expressed will of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The Board further argues that the EEOC erred in its determination that one of the Administrative Law Judge's (
674 ISENBERGH V. KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPER, INC.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Isenbergh v. Was the manager of KRNS's Miami sales office. Was the manager of MMTM's Miami sales office. Both were candidates. Was apparently between Isenbergh and Malloy. The two rankings were averaged to obtain each candidate's overall score.<p> When the nine candidates who had worked at KRNS or MMTM for more than six months were ranked according to this system. Including one who was sixty three years old </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944769.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the manager of KRNS's Miami sales office. Forty four Both were years old. Was the manager of MMTM's Miami sales office. candidates. Was apparently between Isenbergh and Malloy. The two rankings were averaged to obtain each candidate's overall score. When the nine candidates who had worked at KRNS or MMTM for more than six months were ranked according to this system. Three managers over age fifty including one who was sixty three years old finished higher than Isenbergh. Isenbergh was He offered the chance to interview for a sales position in Miami. chose to take early retirement instead. Isenbergh testified that the atmosphere at his interview was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/061496P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thomas's request was approved in early 2000. Thomas informed Hargarten she felt she was treated differently than male employees. Because men were allowed to carry guns and Thomas was not even allowed to use pepper spray. They were never required to fill out a Form 191. Thomas alleges Lyle later stated he did not have to fill out a Form 191. KCPD argues a Form 191 is not a form of disciplinary action. Which gave her The record is unclear regarding who allegedly complained to Hargarten regarding Thomas's conduct. The record indicates at least three Juvenile Unit employees did not have any complaints regarding Thomas. 4 4 a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTMzNDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3348-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044078p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Appellant Anna Jensen is a letter carrier with the Kingston. We will reverse and remand. The record contains evidence sufficient to support a finding that the alleged retaliatory harassment was also discrimination </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/043426P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Turner was a long time FBI Special Agent with commendations for her work on high profile cases. She was stationed at the Minot. The SRA is the top ranking agent at a station that has no official supervisor. Turner was denied a supervisory position in Fargo. Turner began to complain that Welken was not properly crediting her with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-4769.man.html">ISENBERGH V. KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWSPAPER, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isenbergh v. Was the manager of KRNS's Miami sales office. Was the manager of MMTM's Miami sales office. Both were candidates. Was apparently between Isenbergh and Malloy. The two rankings were averaged to obtain each candidate's overall score.<p> When the nine candidates who had worked at KRNS or MMTM for more than six months were ranked according to this system. Including one who was sixty three years old </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/042784P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> UM told Sallis that he would be laid off because his position as a custodian was being abolished. Was covered by its collective bargaining agreement requiring that a worker with less seniority be laid off first. The parking area supervisor for UM who was an African American. The questions were in five categories: supervisory experience. It also found that the use of site specific </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></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="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1880.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lamond with whom McDonald & Associates was on brief for appellants. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of the Boston Bar Association were on brief for intervenor. With whom Boston Police Department Legal Advisor's office was on brief for City of Boston. Was on brief for appellee. This is an appeal from the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendants City of Boston. The BPD believed that promoting Ruiz was necessary to avoid violating an amended 1980 federal court consent decree. That the promotion was narrowly tailored to meet that goal. Officers who pass the exam are placed on an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></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 charge of discrimination was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></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="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/97-1304.htm">97-1304 -- ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS INC. V. SLATER -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR> We are just one race here. It is American. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-5058a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411297.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One issue Collado has brought us is particularly interesting because it arises at the intersection some might say collision of two rules of law. It is a wellestablished rule in job discrimination cases involving circumstantial evidence that the existence of a prima facie case should not be revisited after the defendant's Fed. It is an equally well established and even more fundamental rule that judgment should be entered for the defendant where the plaintiff has failed to prove a necessary element of his case. Which also is a component of the prima facie case? P. 50(b) a post verdict judgment for the defendant on the ground that Collado had 2 failed to prove he was disabled. Collado complains that the court's Rule 50(b) post verdict action amounts to revisiting the prima facie case question after it was settled at the Rule 50(a) stage. There are other issues. Before getting to any of the issues we will set out the historical and procedural facts that frame them all. Who has been an insulin dependent diabetic since he was fourteen years old. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></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="672"></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="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0275p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attached to the declarations were exhibits containing evidentiary material that had not previously been submitted by TVA. Arguing that it was not timely. Was employed with TVA from April of 1977 to September 26. He was a Safety Specialist in TVA's Labor and Safety organization. He had a grade level of SD 4 and was a 60% disabled veteran. His non selection for fortythree vacant positions to which he applied after he was given notice of his RIF. 1. Plaintiff was assigned to perform a safety inspection at TVA's Raccoon Mountain Pumped Storage Plant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2142.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr.</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0016p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></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="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8347C0E301A6BD2A88256F080057D798/$file/0315779.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Labor of the CNMI. TENORIO States of America was signed on February 15. Congress is given the power to pass laws affecting the CNMI by specifically naming the CNMI in any piece of legislation consistent with the Covenant. The United States' authority over the CNMI is not. The CNMI is not under the plenary authority of the United States). The immigration exemption was originally inserted because the CNMI feared that large numbers SAGANA v. Citizens are given a general preference for all jobs. § 4413.1 Employers who wish to hire nonresident workers must first notify the CNMI Department of Labor. The employer must also guarantee that at least ten percent of his or her workforce is comprised of resident workers. § 4436(a). Although the industries which employ the vast majority of temporary workers are exempted from standard minimum wage laws. §§ 4436(c). The employer is also responsible for providing for the medical expenses of any nonresident worker and for costs that may Unless otherwise indicated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11B5068946BCC6FB88256F31005779C7/$file/0315779.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. Was sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Labor of the CNMI. The Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America was signed on February 15. Congress is given the power to pass laws affecting the CNMI by specifically naming the CNMI in any piece of legislation consistent with the Covenant. TENORIO 14587 The United States' authority over the CNMI is not. The CNMI is not under the plenary authority of the United States). The immigration exemption was originally inserted because the CNMI feared that large numbers of Asian immigrants would migrate to the CNMI under the United States' numerical quotas to take advantage of the CNMI's new affiliation with the United States. Citizens are given a general preference for all jobs. § 4413.1 Employers who wish to hire nonresident workers must first notify the CNMI Department of Labor. All section designations are to the NWA. TENORIO ten percent of his or her workforce is comprised of resident workers. § 4436(a). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1355.htm">98-1355 -- SHORTER V. ICG HOLDINGS INC. -- 08/17/1999<BR></A><BR> Claiming she was unlawfully terminated because of her race in violation of 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></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-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-1350.htm">98-1350 -- POWELL V. COBE LABORATORIES INC. -- 03/02/2000<BR></A><BR> Powell frequently inquired about formal procedures for the planner position but was told none existed. She was offered an entry level production job to allow her to continue to search for what she determined to be suitable employment within the company. Or were positions for which she did not qualify. Powell claims it was during this time period. Scheck's starting salary was $32. Powell's Motion to File Supplemental Appendix as the additional material offered was either provided by COBE. We do not have the time or resources to catalogue every objection we have to the attorneys' conduct other than to echo the lament voiced by Senior District Judge Stuart. Sitting by designation with the Eighth Circuit: <p> The most troublesome aspect of this lawsuit is the lack of professionalism and civility displayed by the lawyers.... This case serves as an example of the unfortunate lack of civility in the practice of law which is receiving considerable attention at this time.... The motions are denied. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040.htm">96-4040 -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/022335P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mary Ottman (Ottman) was employed as a city planner with the City of Independence. 500.1 1 This salary was above the minimum rate of pay for the position. 2 Hahl also hired Jim Marwedel (Marwedel) as a city planner.2 Marwedel had a master's degree and considerable planning experience. Marwedel's starting salary was $33. When Marwedel was hired. Ottman was earning $34. Hahl promoted Richardson.3 When Ottman was not promoted. Ottman believed Hahl was giving her inferior job assignments because of her gender. Some of Ottman's assignments were expressly requested by the mayor. It does not appear Ottman specifically complained to Hahl she was being denied significant jobs because of her gender. The summary judgment record does not indicate when Marwedel was hired. It appears Marwedel was hired sometime in 1999. Richardson attended a leadership training seminar which Ottman was not allowed to attend. His disparate treatment was reflected in his words and actions. Richardson did not have supervisory authority over Ottman and did not have authority to recommend disciplinary action against Ottman. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-7138a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040a.htm">96-4040A -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> The correct sentence should read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/96-4040.wpd.html">HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY<BR></A><BR> The correct sentence should read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/022447P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court2 granted Kohler's motion for judgment as a matter of law finding that Kohler's reasons for firing Reynolds were legitimate and that Reynolds offered no evidence of retaliation. Reynolds often did not have enough parts to meet his production quota because his output depended on the production of those ahead of him on the line. He would not have sinks to work on from the third shift. Bailey often spent their shift hours in the break room with Reynolds when they did not have parts to work on. Employees and managers were. That he did not know that clocking in and out early was a violation of company policy. Miller told Reynolds that she would have to notify Dickson about the problem. Reynolds then told Miller that he believed he was singled out by Davis because of his race. Both Reynolds and the union representative told Miller that they believed that other employees were keeping the same schedule. They noticed that he had failed to have a foreman sign his time cards as required. They also reviewed Bailey's time cards and found that his clock in and clock out times were either during the same minute or within a minute of Reynolds's times. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/992853P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Is entitled to recover punitive damages for conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/021025P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Trout was 66 years old. A 67 year old bus driver was reassigned to drive Trout's former route. Gretlein was the only non board member present during the Board's closed door meeting to deny renewal to Trout. He was also responsible for informing employees of the Board's decision and indeed informed Trout that the Board had decided not to renew his contract. Trout alleges he asked Gretlein why he was not going to be employed the following school year and Gretlein said </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-4019.htm">01-4019 -- MARQUEZ V. BAKER PROCESS INC. -- 07/02/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Edward G. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040d.htm">96-4040D -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> Any such sharp dichotomy... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-2518.man.html">WILLIAMS V. VITRO SERVICES CORP. (7/1/1998, NO. 97-2518)<BR></A><BR> Tracor are related companies that function as defense contractors for the United States government. He was approximately forty nine years old.</P> <P> In 1989. Vitro bid on a government project for the United States Army that would have required the company to relocate some of its personnel to Arizona. Would have received a promotion in both rank and salary. That he would be interested in these positions if they were consolidated into one job. The court found that Williams had not shown that he was qualified for any available position within Vitro at the time of his termination. That the district court erred in concluding that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a jury question regarding his circumstantial allegations of age discrimination against both Vitro and Flight Systems.</P> <P><CENTER>II. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact. <EM>See</EM> Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). There is no genuine issue for trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></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-6.gif" ALT="670"></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-6.gif" ALT="670"></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-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-3040.htm">99-3040 -- BABBAR V. EBADI -- 05/26/2000<BR></A><BR> Babbar a male of Indian national origin and Hindu faith was employed as assistant professor in the Department of Management ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0360n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sullivan argues that the district court should have denied summary judgment with regard to her discrimination claims because she was similarly situated to non minority employees who were The Honorable Jon P. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Ohio/Kentucky treated more favorably and because CCE's reasons for terminating her were pretextual. Sullivan contends that the district court should have considered her retaliation claim under the opposition clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3. Sullivan was paid an annual salary of $32. Before they are assigned to a permanent territorial sales route. Sullivan was required to fill in for other account managers who were absent or on leave. She was also required to service retail accounts. Sullivan was initially supervised by Anthony Goolsby. Goolsby had a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-2518.man.html">WILLIAMS V. VITRO SERVICES CORP. (7/1/1998, NO. 97-2518)<BR></A><BR> Tracor are related companies that function as defense contractors for the United States government. He was approximately forty nine years old.</P> <P> In 1989. Vitro bid on a government project for the United States Army that would have required the company to relocate some of its personnel to Arizona. Would have received a promotion in both rank and salary. That he would be interested in these positions if they were consolidated into one job. The court found that Williams had not shown that he was qualified for any available position within Vitro at the time of his termination. That the district court erred in concluding that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a jury question regarding his circumstantial allegations of age discrimination against both Vitro and Flight Systems.</P> <P><CENTER>II. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact. <EM>See</EM> Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). There is no genuine issue for trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5256a.html">PAUL FORMAN V. LAWRENCE SMALL<BR></A><BR> Chertkof argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054803np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Taylor is an African American female who was employed as a secretary at Springer Middle School in Wilmington. She alleges that she was denied promotions and ultimately constructively discharged on the basis of her race and as retaliation for having complained of discriminatory treatment and harassment. Holding that some of Taylor's claims were time barred. That she had failed to satisfy her burden to demonstrate a prima facie case of racial discrimination for those that were not time barred. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated below. After the New Castle School District was partially merged into the Brandywine School District. She was promoted to Attendance Clerk. She was promoted to Secretary. 2 she was promoted to Guidance Secretary at Springer Middle School ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></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-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1592p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that the damages were excessive and significantly reduced them in a remittitur. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Scott contends that Rush's employment discrimination claim based on failure to promote and train is time barred 2 and cannot be saved by application of the continuing violation theory. We will reverse the judgment entered in favor of Rush and remand the case to the district court to enter judgment in Scott's favor on Rush's failure to promote and train claim and to grant a new trial on her sexual harassment and constructive discharge claims. Common law claims are no longer in the case and thus will not be retried. Scott conducted a flask making course which trained some Lab Tech Is in skills needed for promotion to Lab Tech II analyst positions. Scott intended to use the training course as a promotion device and planned to promote the highest performing Lab Tech Is to Lab Tech IIs. Rush claims she was not informed about the class. Although several male employees were. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></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-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/042381P.pdf">N:\DOCS\DIANE\04-2381 HAAS V. KELLY FINAL OPN.WPD<BR></A><BR> Sonya Haas filed this claim for age discrimination and retaliation after she was terminated from her job with Kelly Services. Haas was promoted to branch manager. Barbara Schuster ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></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-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200111/00-5256a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Douglas B. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. I. Paul Forman is a curator for Modern Physics at the National Museum of American History of the Smithsonian Institution. He was hired in 1972 as an associate curator. He was passed over for a non competitive promotion to Grade 14 in 1988 and 1991 92. A decision concerning his promotion was postponed for one year. He was promoted to Grade 14 in 1996 when he was 59 years old. The relevant background to these decisions is as follows. Forman requested and was granted a two year temporary duty assignment to New York City with the primary task of preparing a draft of a book on the history of atomic clocks.1 His normal day to day duties as curator. Were minimized. Forman that he expected a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></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-6.gif" ALT="668"></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-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962189.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The four plaintiffs were vice presidents at Salem. Jensen ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3037.htm">97-3037 -- MEDLOCK V. ORTHO BIOTECH INC. -- 01/05/1999<BR></A><BR> The questions we must resolve on appeal are: (1) did Medlock present sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of retaliatory discharge as well as its award of punitive damages. (3) did the verdict form allow the jury to erroneously disregard after acquired evidence on which OBI could have legitimately relied to terminate plaintiff. Shortly after a meeting at which plaintiff learned that a scheduled salary increase was going to be postponed for six months. Describing plaintiff as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1050.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 2. Footnote 8: delete </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-4566.man.html">FARLEY V. NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO. (12/14/1999, NO. 98-4566)<BR></A><BR> Judgment was entered for Farley in the amount of $585. Nationwide now appeals this verdict alleging both that the jury instructions contained material mistakes of law and that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive. A claims adjustor is charged with handling all aspects of an insurance claim from investigating a damages claim to negotiating and settling the claim with the policyholder. Farley was placed under the supervision of District Claims Manager Hugh Glatts. That year was particularly stressful for Farley. His mother died and his young daughter was diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal disease. Because Christo was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></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="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-4566.man.html">FARLEY V. NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO. (12/14/1999, NO. 98-4566)<BR></A><BR> Judgment was entered for Farley in the amount of $585. Nationwide now appeals this verdict alleging both that the jury instructions contained material mistakes of law and that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive. A claims adjustor is charged with handling all aspects of an insurance claim from investigating a damages claim to negotiating and settling the claim with the policyholder. Farley was placed under the supervision of District Claims Manager Hugh Glatts. That year was particularly stressful for Farley. His mother died and his young daughter was diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal disease. Because Christo was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0121p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT X No. 02 3623 v. > . None of which was for diabetes. He did not mention that his absence was in any way related to his diabetic condition. This suspension triggered plaintiff's termination because it was his third attendance related suspension within five years. Plaintiff was terminated. Mentioned that his March 31st absence was due to his diabetes. Stating that the absence was due to an extended episode of diabetes related hypoglycemia. Plaintiff further testified that he was. Tha t this apparent misrepresentation by plaintiff was not a factor in its decision to terminate plaintiff. It is irrelevant to the determination of whether defendant improperly terminated plaintiff under the A DA or the FM LA in the first instance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33123AAFB79F09708825714F006B0F4A/$file/0315045.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was terminated from her position as a bartender at the sports bar in Harrah's Reno casino not long after Harrah's began to enforce its comprehensive uniform. Jespersen refused to comply with the makeup requirement and was effectively terminated for that reason. While women were required to use makeup and men were forbidden to wear makeup. Women were allowed to have long hair and men were required to have their hair cut to a length above the collar. 875 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/953430P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Worked as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwNjItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9062-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/043000P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\8-5\04-3000.RODGERS V. US BANK.OPN.FINAL.RWG.WPD<BR></A><BR> Bank's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for her termination was a pretext for discrimination. Was employed at the Picture Hills Branch of U.S. Bank's policy prohibiting employees from processing transactions on their own accounts and its policy on progressive discipline.2 Rodgers was trained on the proper way to do a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></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-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-5278a.pdf">O:\OPN\KATE\ROCHON\ROCHON V. GONZALES.V21.WPD<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-9226.man.html">STANDARD V. A.B.E.L. SERVICES, INC. (12/3/1998, NO. 97-9226)<BR></A><BR> Five of whom were dismissed by the district court. Contending that Standard was not considered for a promotion and was later terminated for legitimate. Nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual. Inc. is a business engaged in the production and sale of decorative architectural pieces. These pieces are produced by casting them from molds. The manufacturing process is performed by two different departments: the tooling department and the production department. The tooling department is responsible for crafting the molds that the production department uses to make the finished product. The production of these molds requires a far greater level of skill than is required to cast the finished pieces. Some of the molds are made from scratch. Others are made by altering or combining pre existing molds in a process known as mold setup.</P> <P> Plaster Concepts leases most of its employees from A.B.E.L. Standard was such a leased employee. Leased employees are interviewed and selected by Plaster Concepts. While A.B.E.L. is responsible for handling payroll. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032571P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was employed at the Twin Cities Assembly Plant of Ford Motor Company. Throughout that period she was placed on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1521_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is African American. I. Background The material facts are undisputed but lengthy. Beamon began working at M&I in 1992 and for the first five and a half years of his career with the company was employed as a trust fund accountant. In November 1997 he was promoted to a supervisory position in the Income Processing Department. The Income Processing Department was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1929.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. and Elizabeth Bartholet were on brief for defendants. Fiore and Sulloway & Hollis were on brief for Genevieve A. P.A. were on brief for Brian Miller. The plaintiffs Genevieve Scarfo and Brian Miller are former employees of defendant Cabletron Systems. Were also defendants in the district court. Each party opposing a claim of error asserts that no timely objection or request was made in the trial court. Is to ask: Should we hold that the appellant (or cross appellant) on each claim of error now before us is not entitled to be heard on the merits of that contention in the circumstances of this appeal? The search requires also that we take account of Supreme Court and circuit decisions handed down after this case was argued. Commentators and opinion writers have invoked imagery of the almost impenetrable. They have spoken. Dissenting) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></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-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul09/03-20577-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bryan failed to present evidence either establishing a prima facie case of discrimination or establishing that McKinsey's legitimate explanation for terminating Bryan's employment was a pretext for racial discrimination. I Bryan is a black male. Bryan was promoted multiple times by McKinsey to positions involving higher levels of responsibility and pay. Bryan was promoted to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></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-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-9226.man.html">STANDARD V. A.B.E.L. SERVICES, INC. (12/3/1998, NO. 97-9226)<BR></A><BR> Five of whom were dismissed by the district court. Contending that Standard was not considered for a promotion and was later terminated for legitimate. Nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual. Inc. is a business engaged in the production and sale of decorative architectural pieces. These pieces are produced by casting them from molds. The manufacturing process is performed by two different departments: the tooling department and the production department. The tooling department is responsible for crafting the molds that the production department uses to make the finished product. The production of these molds requires a far greater level of skill than is required to cast the finished pieces. Some of the molds are made from scratch. Others are made by altering or combining pre existing molds in a process known as mold setup.</P> <P> Plaster Concepts leases most of its employees from A.B.E.L. Standard was such a leased employee. Leased employees are interviewed and selected by Plaster Concepts. While A.B.E.L. is responsible for handling payroll. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></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-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1330p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hutchinson was a member of the original panel which heard argument in this appeal on March 6. 1995 before the appeal was resolved. Judge Mansmann was designated to serve in his place on the reconstituted panel. ** Honorable Jane A. It would have discharged Delli Santi in any event. Since there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. We will vacate the district court's judgment as a matter of law on the affirmative defense for CNA. We will also vacate the district court's conditional grant of a new trial because. The verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence. We will. We will return this case to the district court for entry of judgment on the jury verdict. She was a first party claims handler. Although CNA's home office is located in Chicago. When Farah told her this was untrue and there were two men in field positions at grade level 36 (a higher level). I didn't think it was right. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/05/01-6203.htm">01-6203 -- COFFMAN V. GLICKMAN -- 05/06/2003<BR></A><BR> Coffman alleged that he was terminated by the USDA based upon illegal discrimination related to age. Coffman was terminated from employment by the USDA for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992137.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: These appeals were consolidated for oral argument pursuant to U.S. They were given lower annual evaluations and correspondingly lower annual raises from 1994 to 1998. Were denied other professional opportunities incident to their employment at VSU.1 The cases were consolidated by the district court for discovery and trial. Their claims are not a part of this appeal. 2 Farley was named as a defendant in Saleh's case only. Epps was named as a defendant in Mbagwu's case only. Saleh's discrimination and retaliation claims against Demers were presented to the jury and a verdict was returned in Demers' favor. 1 SALEH v. The district court determined that the underlying factual allegations were subject to Virginia's two year statute of limitations. The district court found that evidence respecting the time barred allegations was relevant to prove discriminatory intent as to the claims surviving summary judgment. The matter was tried before a jury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></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 $831. Even though Xifiras was serving on the Citizens board of directors at the time and intended to use the proceeds to acquire commercial real estate. Was inflated. Were rumored to be involved in an extramarital affair. Silva sent Simas a memorandum advising that his repeated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A83BC2AA9FFB8215882571CA007FEF45/$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="661"></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-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0252p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Vickers was employed as a private police officer by Fairfield Medical Center in Lancaster. Kory Dixon and John Mueller were also police officers at FMC and often worked with Vickers. Steve Anderson was Police Chief of FMC's police department and was Vickers' supervisor. Vickers' seventy one page complaint is extremely detailed. Alleging that Vickers was `gay' or homosexual. Vickers contends that he was subject to daily instances of harassment at the hands of his coworkers from May 2002 through March 2003. Playing tape recorded conversations in the office during which Vickers was ridiculed for being homosexual. He was physically harassed by his co workers. Vickers and Mueller were conducting handcuff training. It was removed from his mailbox. Vickers further contends that the picture was hanging up in a window at FMC on January 15. Vickers considered reporting the harassment he was experiencing to FMC's Vice President or President but asserts that Anderson confronted Vickers before he reported the harassment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8526CE0F34F198D68825707C004B9F99/$file/0316959.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that Dominguez presented ample evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and that the decision not to promote her was motivated at least in part by her gender. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/94-1351.html">ELLIS V. UNITED AIRLINES<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs argued that United's explanation was a pretext for intentional discrimination against them because of their age. Cannot excuse United's failure to grant Plaintiffs the preferential hiring treatment to which they were entitled under the ADA as airline employees displaced by deregulation. We reject Plaintiffs' ADEA claim because Plaintiffs have failed to submit evidence raising a genuine dispute that United's explanation for not hiring them is pretextual. Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence raising a genuine dispute that United's explanation for not hiring them is pretextual. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Plaintiffs are not entitled to the payment of further expert witness fees because their motion for such fees was untimely. One standard sets weight limits which must initially be met by new job applicants and the second standard establishes maximum weight limits that cannot be exceeded by flight attendants after they are hired. Was a product of its collective bargaining agreement with the flight attendant union. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-2099.htm">97-2099 -- MIGNEAULT V. PECK -- 10/23/1998<BR></A><BR> Migneault was an employee of the University. She was placed on lay off status in March 1994 and laid off in June 1994. She was married to Robert L. She was over forty years old at all relevant times. <p> In March 1994. The position was two grades lower on the University personnel scale than her position at the Center for Non Invasive Diagnosis and paid roughly $10. Three of the four candidates were over the age of forty. Who was under forty years old. Migneault was told she was not offered the job because she was overqualified and because there was a feeling she would not be happy in the position. Migneault alleges these reasons were pretextual for age discrimination.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0003n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * No. 03 3979 Defendants' proffered reasons for not promoting her were pretextual. Claudette Walcott ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-3027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></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-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/962802P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Deneen did not prove unlawful discrimination and that her claims are precluded The Honorable David S. A reasonable jury could have found the following facts. She was pregnant at that time with an expected delivery date in July. Deneen was surprised that anyone at NWA would even know whether or not Mrs. Deneen discovered that no time card was prepared for her and her name had been crossed off the work list with a notation by Mark Horvath. That she was on a medical leave of absence. Deneen about her medical condition they were acting on an assumption that she had a pregnancy related complication that would not allow her to perform her job functions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/054183P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this sex discrimination action against The Dial Corporation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of a number of women who had applied for work but were not hired. Dial is an international company with a plant located in Fort Madison. Entry level employees at the plant are assigned to the sausage packing area where workers daily lift and carry up to 18. They are required to carry approximately 35 pounds of sausage at a time and must lift and load the sausage to heights between 30 and 60 inches above the floor. In this test job applicants were asked to carry a 35 pound bar between two frames. The applicants were told to work at their </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053157np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Individually whose identities are currently unknown On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey D.C. Persons whose identities are currently unknown (all collectively referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2015a.htm">98-2015A -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. WAL-MART STORES INC. -- 08/23/1999<BR></A><BR> The most important factor to consider </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971509.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that he was improperly terminated in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0199n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. terminated him and subjected him to a hostile work environment because he is Pakistani and practices the Shia Imamya Ismaili sect of Islam. Cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination or that Highgate's proffered reason for his termination was pretextual. Et al. the District Court is affirmed. I Plaintiff Appellant Amin Hussain is a Pakistani who practices the Shia Imamya Ismaiali sect of Islam. Which is owned by Defendant Appellee Pontch Limited Partnership. Which was also owned by Pontch. Pontch is owned by Jaffer Khimji. One of Hussain's primary responsibilities was performing bank reconciliations. Which is similar to balancing a checkbook. The transition was necessary because Highgate's software vendor had informed Marshalek that it would no longer support the software Highgate was then using. (J.A. 238.)1 As his request to be excused was denied. Marshalek stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/981254P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Young underwent extensive physical rehabilitation and was unable to work for a substantial period of time. He was able to return to work with the aid of a prosthetic device on October 31. Was subsequently given permission to work without restrictions on March 28. Young's motion to strike portions of Warner Jenkinson's brief is denied as moot. 2 2 * You missed 30.5 hours since reporting to the Dispersion area on August 19. The most recent eight (8) hour occurrence was the result of a legal incarceration. * You were responsible for a significant product spill during the week of November 27. That was a result of simple carelessness. The incident occurred when you took possession of a material mover while it was being used to elevate a tank and fill a drum. The incident demonstrated a lack of attention to the job. * You did not work well with the experienced and very qualified full Grade 3 operator that you were assigned to work with. Maintained that these deficiencies were unrelated to the ultimate decision to terminate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/00-1373.htm">00-1373 -- DAVEY V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. -- 08/28/2002<BR></A><BR> We affirm the judgment in all other regards.<strong><em></strong></em> <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Davey was hired by Martin Marietta Corporation. From 1989 until she was discharged. Bills subsequently resigned from his supervisory position and Turner was removed from his supervisory position. Her employment was terminated on April 12. LMC alleged Davey's position was eliminated and her duties were divided among other employees who had not been selected for layoff. Were unable to agree on one addition </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1416_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Department's main office is in Springfield and there are various regional offices throughout the State. The other three Regional Epidemiologists are Caucasian. Pitzer was responsible for hiring and assigning a secretary to Byrd. Cynthia Steelman was an administrative assistant in the Edwardsville office for approximately thirteen years. Pitzer commented that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/97-3202.man.html">TAYLOR V. RUNYON (5/4/1999, NO. 97-3202)<BR></A><BR> Taylor was responsible for mail processing equipment and supervisory responsibilities. Sumner was the selecting official at mid Florida for the reassignment of positions during the reorganization.</P> <P> For reassignment under the new system. Taylor was eligible for reassignment positions between EAS 14 and EAS 20. Where his overall score for Taylor's performance was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2702_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two of the firefighters who were forced to retire under the MRO filed suit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. That mandatory 2 No. 05 2702 retirement of firefighters was not contrary to the ADEA. These two agreements were identical. Seniority is defined as an employee's length of continuous service since his last date of hire. . . . ... Is discharged for just cause. Retires or is retired. Is absent for three (3) consecutive days (workdays) without notifying the Employer's authorized representative. Is laid off and fails to report for work within ten (10) calendar days after mailing . . . a notification of recall . . . A more complete history is set forth in our opinion in Kopec v. No exception was made for individuals employed as police officers and firefighters. Age limits were permitted only to the extent that employers could establish that age was a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Those doubts were put to rest by the Supreme Court's decision in E.E.O.C. v. Congress amended the ADEA to exempt from the statutory ban on age discrimination any state or local age limits on public safety personnel which were in place as of March 3. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1661.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief. P.A. were on brief. He alleged that he was discharged from his position as Vice President of Finance because he was male. Reasoning that it was included under the statutory cap. Was inappropriate under the circumstances of the case. Our review of the record reveals that this was a case with much to say on either side. It was in our minds an exceptionally hard fought trial. While the verdict could have gone either way. Our review persuades us that no error was committed below such as to justify reversal. The plaintiff finally is given the opportunity to convince the trier of fact that the justification was pretextual and that the real reason was discriminatory. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1723p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This action is based on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. SS 951 963 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/98-9337.opn.html">NADINE S. KOCH, DR. V. EDWIN A. RUGG, DR. (8/11/2000, NO. 98-9337)<BR></A><BR> Who is Jewish. Was a tenured political science professor at California State University in Los Angeles. She was employed as a part time or temporary professor in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/98-9337.opn.html">KOCH V. RUGG (8/11/2000, NO. 98-9337)<BR></A><BR> Who is Jewish. Was a tenured political science professor at California State University in Los Angeles. She was employed as a part time or temporary professor in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1931.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That award was reduced by the district court to $237. Also alleging that the discrimination was in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/031158p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Edward Raymond Williams was unable to carry a firearm as the result of a mental condition. Was additionally perceived by his employer to be unable to have access to firearms. Because a reasonable jury could conclude that Williams was actually (or perceived to be) precluded from working in a class of jobs. We will now reverse that grant of summary judgment a n d r e m a n d W i l l ia m s ' s A D A discrimination claim (and corresponding claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act) for further proceedings. We will affirm the District Court's determination with respect to Williams's retaliation claims because Williams has not proffered sufficient evidence to support a retaliation claim. The Facts Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to Williams Williams was hired by PHA as a police officer and worked for PHA for 24 years until his termination. You will have exhausted all of your sick leave and annual leave benefits. You will have to request through memorandum a leave of absence. . . . [F]ailure to do so will mean that you have voluntarily resigned as a member of this police department. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/98-9337.opn.html">NADINE S. KOCH, DR. V. EDWIN A. RUGG, DR. (8/11/2000, NO. 98-9337)<BR></A><BR> Who is Jewish. Was a tenured political science professor at California State University in Los Angeles. She was employed as a part time or temporary professor in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0570n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were stored on Mazumder's computer. 000 files were copied from his computer. Bernard further investigated the allegations and concluded that Mazumder was mistaken about the extent of the copying. Said that it was impossible to determine which files were actually copied. Had told him that was the number of files in the accessed directories. Bernard concluded that it would have been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953179.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ocala Star Banner Corporation and the New York Times Company. whether a plaintiff This appeal presents the question of under the ADA can recover for suing discrimination without showing that his disability was the sole cause for the adverse employment action taken against him. That the district court erred by submitting to the jury a special interrogatory verdict form that allowed recovery for McNely's ADA discrimination claim only if the jury found that he was terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-6440.htm">97-6440 -- JONES V. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMM. -- 10/07/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Lillian Faye Jones appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Raymond Griffith and the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) on her employment discrimination claims under Title VII. She asserted that she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of inappropriate sexual advances and racial slurs. <p> The district court found that Jones' claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment were time barred as she failed to file a timely claim with the EEOC.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/97-8170.man.html">PLEMING V. UNIVERSAL-RUNDLE CORP. (6/8/1998, NO. 97-8170)<BR></A><BR> She applied for a clerical position that would have been less physically demanding but would have paid her less than what she earned as a laborer. Pleming sought to use these incidents to prove that Universal Rundle's policy was a pretext for discrimination and thus avoid summary judgment on her claims arising out of the July 1993 hiring decision. A magistrate judge found that Pleming's claims of racial discrimination were sufficient to withstand Universal Rundle's motion for summary judgment. Finding that Pleming had failed to prove that the company's non discriminatory explanation was pretext. Although the parties are in essential agreement about the material facts of the case. The doctrine of <EM>res judicata</EM> provides repose by preventing the relitigation of claims that have already been fully litigated and decided. <EM>Res judicata. Res judicata</EM> bars this litigation because her case satisfies all the other elements of the doctrine.</P> <P> The determination of whether a litigant has asserted the same cause of action in two proceedings depends upon whether the primary right and duty are the same in both cases. <EM>See Manning v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/98-9337.opn.html">KOCH V. RUGG (8/11/2000, NO. 98-9337)<BR></A><BR> Who is Jewish. Was a tenured political science professor at California State University in Los Angeles. She was employed as a part time or temporary professor in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3238_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/97-8170.man.html">PLEMING V. UNIVERSAL-RUNDLE CORP. (6/8/1998, NO. 97-8170)<BR></A><BR> She applied for a clerical position that would have been less physically demanding but would have paid her less than what she earned as a laborer. Pleming sought to use these incidents to prove that Universal Rundle's policy was a pretext for discrimination and thus avoid summary judgment on her claims arising out of the July 1993 hiring decision. A magistrate judge found that Pleming's claims of racial discrimination were sufficient to withstand Universal Rundle's motion for summary judgment. Finding that Pleming had failed to prove that the company's non discriminatory explanation was pretext. Although the parties are in essential agreement about the material facts of the case. The doctrine of <EM>res judicata</EM> provides repose by preventing the relitigation of claims that have already been fully litigated and decided. <EM>Res judicata. Res judicata</EM> bars this litigation because her case satisfies all the other elements of the doctrine.</P> <P> The determination of whether a litigant has asserted the same cause of action in two proceedings depends upon whether the primary right and duty are the same in both cases. <EM>See Manning v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/042979P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Maxfield argues that the district court erred in holding that (1) he failed to present evidence to show that Cintas's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for adverse employment actions were pretexts for race discrimination under the third step of the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas v. (2) he failed under USERRA to present evidence to show that his military service was a motivating factor in Cintas's actions. 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. The facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom are as follows. A draw was essentially a salary that was advanced on expected sales. If commissions on sales were less than the draw. Before he was able to reduce it to $1. Who was responsible for preparing Maxfield's orders. Asking whether Maxfield had reported for duty and whether it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012413.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/97-3202.man.html">TAYLOR V. RUNYON (5/4/1999, NO. 97-3202)<BR></A><BR> Taylor was responsible for mail processing equipment and supervisory responsibilities. Sumner was the selecting official at mid Florida for the reassignment of positions during the reorganization.</P> <P> For reassignment under the new system. Taylor was eligible for reassignment positions between EAS 14 and EAS 20. Where his overall score for Taylor's performance was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1789.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ndez</SPAN> were on brief. P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Remand.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1237.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schwartz</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></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-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2057.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Procter & Hoar LLP were on brief for appellant. LLP were on brief for appellee. Contending that (1) various evidentiary rulings affected the verdict and (2) the jury instructions were incomplete and misleading. Was beset by operational problems that were undermining sales in the Boston area. Kelley was promoted to Regional Field Services Manager ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1037p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the district court's denial of Westinghouse's post trial motions. The record is not critically deficient of evidence from which a jury might have reasonably found that Westinghouse discriminated against Starceski because of age. We will vacate the district court's order denying Starceski's motion for pre judgment interest and remand for the purpose of calculating the interest due and adding it to his judgment. We will affirm the district court's refusal to grant him reinstatement. An award of pre judgment interest together with an award of liquidated damages is not a double recovery. We hold that the district court did not err in concluding that reinstatement is inappropriate under the circumstances. Starceski was about one month short of his sixty fourth birthday. There he was responsible. Starceski stated that once these orders were given. He was not given any new assignments and work was also taken away from other older colleagues. Starceski and five other engineers were informed that their services were no longer needed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-3021.htm">96-3021 -- SPRAGUE V. THORN AMERICAS INC. -- 11/24/1997<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-3021a.htm">96-3021A -- SPRAGUE V. THORN AMERICAS INC. -- 11/24/1997<BR></A><BR> Name of counsel for the appellant is misspelled. M. Kathryn Webb is the correct spelling. <p> Please make the appropriate correction. <p> Very truly yours. We have jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A19E2EB47F95923E88257168007C9290/$file/0455647.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that they have failed to make a prima facie showing 5260 COLBERN v. We hold in the alternative that appellees had a legitimate non discriminatory reason for the actions they took and that such reason was nonpretextual. Appellants are virtually all Caucasian3 former MLB players who played in the Major Leagues for less than four years between 1947 and 1979 and were accordingly denied MLB pension and medical benefits.4 Until 1947. African Americans were not allowed to Colbern played for the Chicago White Sox in 1978 and 1979. MLB commissioner Allan </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0878p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of Oshiver's complaint. On the ground that Oshiver's claims were time barred. We will affirm the district court's dismissal of Oshiver's discriminatory failure to hire claim. Was instead hired as an hourly attorney. Having been informed that there were no salaried positions available at that time. When she was hired. She was also advised by the firm that she would be considered for an associate position if and when an opening occurred. Oshiver was dismissed with the explanation that the firm did not have sufficient work to sustain her position as an hourly employee at that time. Oshiver filed administrative complaints with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2015.htm">98-2015 -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. WAL-MART STORES, INC. -- 08/23/1999<BR></A><BR> With the knowledge that he was hearing impaired and would need an interpreter in certain circumstances. Amaro left a mandatory training session requiring viewing of a video tape because there was neither closed captioning nor an interpreter. Was not a certified </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0466p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kellogg cross appeals from the district court's further finding that Sabhlok was not liable under the terms of the agreements for attorney fees and costs that Kellogg incurred in this litigation. Sabhlok I.1 Page 2 When Jatinder Sabhlok was hired by Kellogg in 1997. Sabhlok received favorable performance reviews and was promoted three times by three different supervisors. Sabhlok was Vice President of the International Research and Development Group and the business partner for the Asia/Australia territory when he learned in July 2001 that Kellogg planned to restructure his group at the end of September 2001. The group was disbanded. More than 20 employees were moved to other positions. Several positions including Sabhlok's were eliminated. He was induced to stay by oral assurances from his supervisor. Donna Banks made both before and after the reduction in force was finalized on September 30. Sabhlok was not selected for any of the openings. Sabhlok was even told that he did not get the position because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-17203.opn.html">LUBETSKY V. APPLIED CARD SYS., INC. (7/12/2002, NO. 01-17203)<BR></A><BR> Asserts the decision maker was not aware of Appellant's religion when he decided to rescind the offer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee because Appellant was unable to establish a </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0536n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because some of Austion's claims were untimely. Because Clarksville's other contentions are without merit. Who is African American. He quickly was selected as an officer for the Vice/Narcotics Unit. He was aware that they were displayed in the station. He held that position for two years until 1998 when he was demoted to patrolman because of performance deficiencies. The noose was displayed for at least four months until African American Detective Tony Blakely contacted the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></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-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-17203.opn.html">LUBETSKY V. APPLIED CARD SYS., INC. (7/12/2002, NO. 01-17203)<BR></A><BR> Asserts the decision maker was not aware of Appellant's religion when he decided to rescind the offer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee because Appellant was unable to establish a </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6366.htm">97-6366 -- SIMMS V. STATE OF OKLAHOMA -- 01/25/1999<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff argues that: (1) his pre 1995 retaliation claims are not time barred and (2) the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his failure to promote claim because he presented sufficient evidence of pretext. 1291 and affirm. <p> The procedural history of this case is somewhat complicated. Defendant gave it to a white employee whom he thought was less qualified. The job announcement stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1843p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by Sandra Simpson from the grant of summary judgment for defendant Kay Jewelers in a suit alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-5101.htm">03-5101 -- FOSTER V. RUTHRPUMPEN INC. -- 04/30/2004<BR></A><BR> Holding that 1) the plaintiffs were never employed by Ruhrpumpen and therefore could not sue Ruhrpumpen for wrongful termination. The court was therefore without jurisdiction to hear such a claim. The plaintiffs now appeal. <p> We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs cannot assert wrongful termination claims because they were never employed by Ruhrpumpen. Those four plaintiffs are similarly situated to the plaintiffs who did file failure to hire charges. The plaintiffs were employed by a pump manufacturing plant known as Flowserve. Flowserve was ordered to divest itself of its Tulsa facility. Each employee is effectively terminated from employment with Flowserve </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-3032.wpd.html">ARAMBURU V. BOEING CO.<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. (4) discriminatory discharge on the basis of his carpal tunnel syndrome.(2) Boeing and Whitesell contend that Aramburu was discharged for failure to maintain proper attendance. Larry Whitesell was Aramburu's supervisor. Aramburu's employment relationship was governed by a collective bargaining agreement between Boeing and the International Association of (1) Aramburu complains that the district court did not clearly identify the undisputed facts upon which it relied and did not specify which portions of his proffered evidence it was rejecting in considering the summary judgment motion. Many of those objections are not supported by materials which the court may consider or are otherwise inappropriate. The court will make no attempt to specifically explain its resolution of the parties' numerous disputes regarding the uncontroverted facts. It is the task of the district court to determine if the party bearing the burden of proof on an issue at trial has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as identified by the substantive law to warrant sending the issue to the factfinder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F694EDF2043DBF088256EC90057655B/$file/0315193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fonseca alleges that he was subjected to discrimination based on his race and ethnicity beginning in 1999. Soon after Don Peterson was hired as the manager of the Sysco warehouse where Fonseca is employed. While Fonseca is the only Guatemalan working at the warehouse. There are other Hispanic employees. Fonseca alleges that white workers consistently have received better treatment than Hispanics in similar circumstances. Fonseca learned that his mother was dying. Fonseca was called back to work only four days after he left. The suspension was reduced to a disciplinary </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/93C3769C26C92A54882570E4005571E5/$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-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2287.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Orr wanted to take several months of parental leave after her child was born. Orr's plan was the use of sick leave. This was intentional because. It was more advantageous to continue to accrue sick leave. Orr's desire to use compensatory time was an effort to use the excess compensatory time she had accumulated. Is a mechanism used to compensate APD employees who work overtime in lieu of monetary compensation. (2) The cap for compensatory time during the relevant periods was 150 hours. Orr was allowed to accumulate compensatory time in excess of the cap to use during her parental leave. Orr was informed that. Vigil relied on an alleged APD policy which purportedly required that only sick leave could be used when leave is taken for any Family and Medical Leave Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov96/95-3179.opa.html">MCNELY V. OCALA STAR-BANNER CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McNely v. This appeal presents the question of whether a plaintiff suing under the ADA can recover for discrimination without showing that his disability was the <i>sole</i> cause for the adverse employment action taken against him. That the district court erred by submitting to the jury a special interrogatory verdict form that allowed recovery for McNely's ADA discrimination claim only if the jury found that he was terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/98-1150a.htm">98-1150A -- HALL V. CLAUSSEN -- 03/06/2001<BR></A><BR> A corrected copy of page one is attached. <p> <p> Sincerely. Hall's claustrophobia was not a disability covered by the ADA. (3) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Mr. Hall was disabled under the ADA. (4) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Sheriff Claussen failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Hall failed to establish that he was terminated because of his disability. (6) Sheriff Claussen was prejudiced by the district <p> <center>court's improper admission of several items of evidence. We conclude that the district court did not err in instructing the jury and that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's findings that Sheriff Claussen violated the ADA. He was able to perform all the functions of the investigator's job. Sheriff Claussen explained that these positions would have constituted promotions from Mr. Where he would have been required to guard prisoners during judicial proceedings. He was not qualified for the job. <p> In late April 1995. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1763p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We <p>hold that such an individual can present a prima facie case <p>of employment discrimination and therefore should survive <p>a motion for summary judgment. <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/98-1150.htm">98-1150 -- HALL V. CLAUSSEN -- 03/06/2001<BR></A><BR> Hall's claustrophobia was not a disability covered by the ADA. (3) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Mr. Hall was disabled under the ADA. (4) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Sheriff Claussen failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Hall failed to establish that he was terminated because of his disability. (6) Sheriff Claussen was prejudiced by the district <p> <center>court's improper admission of several items of evidence. We conclude that the district court did not err in instructing the jury and that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's findings that Sheriff Claussen violated the ADA. He was able to perform all the functions of the investigator's job. Sheriff Claussen explained that these positions would have constituted promotions from Mr. Where he would have been required to guard prisoners during judicial proceedings. He was not qualified for the job. <p> In late April 1995. He requested an assignment to one of two positions in the investigations division: a position that had been vacated by Ted Hartman or an investigator's position that was scheduled to be created on August 15. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1763p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the judgment of the district court as to this claim and remand for further proceedings. Matczak was reassigned to the position of Building Maintenance Supervisor. Matczak suffered an epileptic seizure at work and was hospitalized for seventeen days. Matczak is under my care and cannot at present work around moving machinery. Frankford placed Matczak on restricted duty and assigned various tasks to him which were not prohibited by his doctor (e.g. Frankford's reasons for firing Matczak are unclear since it has offered two conflicting explanations: (1) Matczak was fired because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214820.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2 Barger signed a Statement of Financial Affairs which declared under penalty of perjury that she read the bankruptcy petition and that its contents were true and accurate. Sam Grove asked Barger to list any legal proceedings to which she was or had been a party and to describe the nature of the proceedings. Since it was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/02-1263.htm">02-1263 -- MITCHELL V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 10/12/2004<BR></A><BR> He was a Construction Inspector II Step 7. Two were African American: Mitchell and James Phillips. Each inspector was assigned one of the resident engineers as a direct supervisor. The resident engineers were supervised by Joan Funk. Caucasian inspectors received promotions more quickly and were given more favorable assignments than he. He also alleges he was subjected racial epithets because he is African American. She was sometimes rude to him and gave him the silent treatment. <p> Mitchell also alleges that between 1991 and 1993. The factual basis for his claim is less than clear. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0305n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brennan also claimed that TSC discriminated against him when he was required to change jobs with a younger man. Despite the fact that the job change was a lateral move with no change in pay. John Brennan was hired by Tractor Supply Company as a Management Trainee. Brennan was 47 years old. While Brennan was working in the management training program. Brennan was offered a Store Manager position at TSC's Nashville. Brennan's teaching contract was not renewed in 2001 because Brennan called Hutchins several times in the fall of 2001 seeking re employment with TSC. Hutchins called Brennan and told him that there was a job opportunity available at the Dickson store. Ward 2 did not say what the job was. The job was the position of Team Leader. Which was a sales position that carried some supervisory responsibilities. Although his evaluation was positive. Ward asked Brennan to move from working on the sales floor as a Team Leader to working as a Receiver.2 This was a lateral move. Brennan received only average marks in several areas and he was told that he needed improvement in four areas: (1) following and executing tasks according to the daily planner. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI5MTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2912-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is exempt from liquidated damages. (c) Gregory Warren's liability was premised solely on the New York Human Rights Law. To the extent the judgment is at all ambiguous in appearing to award damages against all defendants. The error is easily corrected. Background At issue in this case are the circumstances in 1998 99 under which plaintiffs Keith Cross. Contended at trial that their demotions were based on race and age. The jury found that plaintiffs' demotions were discriminatory. We are obliged to review the trial evidence in some detail. After the last qualified Maintainer candidate on the civil service eligibility list was hired. Warren agreed to send notices to all Helpers asking them to indicate in writing whether they were interested in provisional appointments as Maintainers. Cross and Francis were not only the oldest but also the two most senior Helpers in the communications 4 maintenance department. The Plaintiffs' Inferior Training Cross and Francis were apparently not trained together with other new Maintainer hires. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1875.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Philips notified Sembos that it was selling a substantial portion of the Philips Components division to Beyerschlag Centralab Components ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1142.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The WCC's mission is to employ young adults in projects involving resource conservation. Steinhauer's primary duties were to assist with the employment and supervision of WCC enrollees and to provide enrollee support and training. After he was hired. He was not the only one to butt heads with the two: It seems that DeGolier's approach to management was far different from that of her predecessor. Over the next year or so several WCC staffers left or were terminated. Steinhauer was one of the staff members who were fired. After he was fired. Allegations of incidents where Steinhauer's duties were altered. Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Our review of a decision on summary judgment is de novo. 832 F.2d 965 (7th Cir. 1987) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></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-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1263.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 42 U.S.C. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. He was a Construction Inspector II Step 7. Two were African American: Mitchell and James Phillips. Each inspector was assigned one of the resident engineers as a direct supervisor. The resident engineers were supervised by Joan Funk. Caucasian inspectors received promotions more quickly and were given more favorable assignments than he. He also alleges he was subjected racial epithets because he is African American. She was sometimes rude to him and gave him the silent treatment. When she delayed the (2) Mitchell alleges Phillips also was assigned to less favorable jobs. <hr> paperwork needed for a training program. The factual basis for his claim is less than clear. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1536.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted Abbott's motion to dismiss on the ground that at will employees cannot maintain claims under § 1981. We find that at will employment relationships are sufficiently contractual to support claims of racial discrimination in promotion and pay under § 1981. Was filed on June 25. No claims of disparate treatment under Title VII were raised. The court struck the plaintiffs Title VII class allegations because the proposed class was overly broad and because plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to describe the qualified population in the relevant labor market. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed on May 21. No allegations were made No. 02 1536 3 based on a Title VII disparate treatment theory. Which was denied. Fields was voluntarily dismissed from the suit. Walker is the only named plaintiff in this action who chose to appeal. The only issue that Walker now raises is whether the district court erred in its March 2. 1999 decision to dismiss his individual § 1981 claim based on Walker's status as an at will employee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042538np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Facts The following facts are undisputed. Marianne Caufield ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov96/95-3179.opa.html">MCNELY V. OCALA STAR-BANNER CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McNely v. This appeal presents the question of whether a plaintiff suing under the ADA can recover for discrimination without showing that his disability was the <i>sole</i> cause for the adverse employment action taken against him. That the district court erred by submitting to the jury a special interrogatory verdict form that allowed recovery for McNely's ADA discrimination claim only if the jury found that he was terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></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-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DCB629F9A8638E8A88257036004CFF9B/$file/0335567.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Terminated him after he got a loader he was operating stuck in the mud. It was undisputed that Head had received this policy. Head was diagnosed with depression or bipolar disorder. Was granted. Of relevance to this appeal were Head's claims under the ADA and Oregon law for disability discrimination based on Head's disability. Head's counsel asked a lay witness the following question about the incident with the loader that preceded Head's termination: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/053861P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is the culmination of a four year span of litigation involving Abdel Elnashar. The heart of the litigation is Elnashar's claim that SuperAmerica discriminated against him on the basis of his Arabic race in the wake of the September 11. Which he believes show that a SuperAmerica employee falsely informed the FBI that he was engaged in bomb making activities. I. Elnashar is an Arab American. Is a Muslim. He was hired as a manager trainee at the Bloomington. Manager trainees may have the opportunity to become store managers after they complete various performance goals. He was transferred to the Rice Street store in St. While he was at the Seventh Street store. Erickson did not believe Elnashar was ready for promotion to a manager position at that time. Elnashar's scheduled hours were cut from full time to sixteen hours per week in early 2002. His work was not as focused on managerial training as he would have liked. Elnashar also reports that Schneider made unwelcome body contact with him when they were working together in close quarters. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5097.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nordam is an FAA certified repair and manufacturing station. Its operations are divided into five divisions: Repair. Whittington was employed by the Transparency Division from 1993. Until he was terminated on January 11. Which stretched a heated six by six foot billet into a ten by ten foot acrylic sheet that was sold to outside customers or used internally by the other cells in the manufacture of acrylic products for aircraft. The criteria used were performance evaluations and disciplinary records. Were ultimately selected for the RIF. Which was announced on January 11. Whittington was the only supervisor terminated in the RIF. There were two types of supervisors within the Transparency Division </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></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-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5247a.html">ANDERSON VICENTE J. V. ZUBIETA, ALBERTO<BR></A><BR> With <p> him on the briefs was <i>Ernest Allen Cohen</i>.<p> <p> <i>Kimberly N. With her on the brief were <i>Wilma A. <p> Lewis</i>. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: Plaintiffs are black American <p> citizens of Panamanian or Hispanic national origin who have <p> long worked for the Panama Canal Commission and its <p> predecessor. The PCC pays them sub <p> stantially less in salary and benefits than it pays other <p> American citizens working at the same jobs the overwhelm <p> ing majority of whom are white. We <p> reverse.<p> <p> <b>I</b> <p> <p> The Canal Commission is a wholly owned United States <p> government corporation. The thirteen plaintiffs were hired <p> by the PCC before 1979. All the plaintiffs are <p> currently United States citizens: eleven were naturalized <p> between 1987 and 1994. The remaining plaintiff is <p> the son of a United States citizen whose citizenship was not <p> registered with the U.S. Which generates the pay differential of which they <p> complain.<p> <p> The first benefit is the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959349.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Carter was hired as a records clerk by Management Assistance. The company was acquired by Bell Atlantic Corporation in 1985 and eventually changed its name to Bell Atlantic Business Systems Services. The Depot Manager position was eliminated and Carter was appointed to a sales position. Carter was a sales representative in the Company's Atlanta District. Each of the Company's sales personnel was allotted an annual dollar sales quota. Their performance was measured by the percentage of his or her quota each achieved. Of which the Atlanta District was part. Carter's performance in 1986 was rated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/99-1141.htm">99-1141 -- SELENKE V. MEDICAL IMAGING OF COLORADO -- 05/10/2001<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7018a.html">BISHOPP SIDNEY V. DC MUNI CORP<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/97-9229.ma3.html">CLOVER V. TOTAL SYS. SERVICES (5/27/1999, NO. 97-9229)<BR></A><BR> Which is published at 157 F.3d 824 (11th Cir.1998). Contending that the evidence Clover adduced at trial was insufficient to support a claim of retaliatory discharge. She was working as a microfiche clerk in the Support Services Division. Her immediate supervisor was Annette Jones. Jones' supervisor was Allen Pettis. The entire Support Services Division was managed by Senior Vice President Walter Miller.</P> <P> On March 22. Asked Jones to have Clover report to the Human Resources office on March 23. There was some confusion about the meeting time. While Clover believed that the meeting was set for 9:15 a.m. Hollingsworth thought that it was scheduled for 9:00 a.m.</P> <P> Worried that the purpose of the meeting might be to inform her of downsizing in her department. Clover told Hollingsworth that her lateness was the result of running a school errand for her nephew.</P> <P> At the Human Resources meeting. Informed Clover that they were conducting an internal TSYS investigation concerning allegations of sexual harassment made by Courtney Waters. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></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="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FFA62A804D286BDB88256D8300581A06/$file/0156050.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0791p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question before us is the proper standard for granting summary judgment in a claim arising under Title VII in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in St. The plaintiff generally must submit evidence which: 1) casts sufficient doubt upon each of the legitimate reasons proffered by the defendant so that a factfinder could reasonably conclude that each reason was a fabrication. Or 2) allows the factfinder to infer that discrimination was more likely then not a motivating or determinative cause of the adverse employment action. We will affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment. At that time the Commission was comprised of five divisions. Read was at all times satisfied with Fuentes' performance. Waters was fond of Fuentes. Was advised to apply for the new positions that interested him. Fuentes and four others were eventually interviewed for that position. Agreed that several of the other interviewees were better qualified than Fuentes for that position. Who is Latino (Puerto Rican). A conclusion which the defendants have never challenged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/97-9229.ma3.html">CLOVER V. TOTAL SYS. SERVICES (5/27/1999, NO. 97-9229)<BR></A><BR> Which is published at 157 F.3d 824 (11th Cir.1998). Contending that the evidence Clover adduced at trial was insufficient to support a claim of retaliatory discharge. She was working as a microfiche clerk in the Support Services Division. Her immediate supervisor was Annette Jones. Jones' supervisor was Allen Pettis. The entire Support Services Division was managed by Senior Vice President Walter Miller.</P> <P> On March 22. Asked Jones to have Clover report to the Human Resources office on March 23. There was some confusion about the meeting time. While Clover believed that the meeting was set for 9:15 a.m. Hollingsworth thought that it was scheduled for 9:00 a.m.</P> <P> Worried that the purpose of the meeting might be to inform her of downsizing in her department. Clover told Hollingsworth that her lateness was the result of running a school errand for her nephew.</P> <P> At the Human Resources meeting. Informed Clover that they were conducting an internal TSYS investigation concerning allegations of sexual harassment made by Courtney Waters. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></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-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-3372.htm">01-3372 -- DOEBELE V. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY -- 08/28/2003<BR></A><BR> (2) weighing the evidence against her in concluding as a matter of law that she was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></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-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410629.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-21061.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5.4. 1 court reverses the district court's order dismissing Turner's Title VII claim and affirms the district court in all other respects. Background for the Lawsuit The appellants were longtime employees of Phillips. The Mahogany is jointly owned by Phillips. Two eight person crews operated the Each crew was comprised of seven men and one woman. Turner's Gender Discrimination Claim Turner alleges that Anadarko failed to hire her to work as an operator on the Mahogany because she is female. Contends that Turner is not qualified to work as an operator on the Mahogany. Anadarko maintains that a person qualified to work on the Mahogany must have a strong background in one of six fields of expertise. Anadarko also maintains that its operators must have the ability to perform all oil platform tasks. Reasoning that Turner Anadarko claims that Turner 3 failed to present evidence to show that Anadarko's stated qualifications are not requirements for working on the Mahogany or that the men who were hired failed to satisfy Anadarko's qualifications. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></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-6.gif" ALT="648"></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="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0079n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This Court will not rule on Defendant's cross appeal. As Project Manager Fricke was supervised by Brent Sparks ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/97-5247a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Ernest Allen Cohen. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are black American citizens of Panamanian or Hispanic national origin who have long worked for the Panama Canal Commission and its predecessor. The PCC pays them sub stantially less in salary and benefits than it pays other American citizens working at the same jobs the overwhelm ing majority of whom are white. I The Canal Commission is a wholly owned United States government corporation. The thirteen plaintiffs were hired by the PCC before 1979. All the plaintiffs are currently United States citizens: eleven were naturalized between 1987 and 1994. The remaining plaintiff is the son of a United States citizen whose citizenship was not registered with the U.S. The first benefit is the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1852.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. We affirm. <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/981636.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before this court on an appeal from an order denying defendant ARCO Chemical Company's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/052803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Phillips Modern Ag Company is owned and operated by Scott Phillips. Whose wife Lori is also involved with the company. Tenge was an at will employee. Scott said that he was always satisfied with her work performance and that she never failed to perform an assigned task. Lori began to believe that Scott and Tenge were involved in a romantic relationship. She grew concerned that Tenge was attempting to seduce Scott. Tenge and her husband were at a bar with Lori. They were at a concert with their spouses. That was just a quick instant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1126.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. He was eligible for promotion to tenure rank but was denied tenure because he was gay and HIV positive. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that Brennan had failed to pursue the grievance procedure governing adverse tenure decisions which was set out in the employee handbook and thereby incorporated into Brennan's employment contract. He argues that the grievance procedure he bypassed was not a remedy he was bound to invoke before presenting his claims to a federal court. We will therefore affirm on that issue. I. Facts The principal facts relevant to this appeal are not in dispute. He applied for tenure and was turned down. Brennan was given a final contract for the 1994 95 academic year. After which his employment was terminated. A. Northeastern's Tenure Review and Appeals Procedures Tenure Review Tenure review at Northeastern is a multi step process ultimately leading to a decision by the board of trustees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></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-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug17/03-21061.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5.4. 1 court reverses the district court's order dismissing Turner's Title VII claim and affirms the district court in all other respects. Background for the Lawsuit The appellants were longtime employees of Phillips. The Mahogany is jointly owned by Phillips. Two eight person crews operated the Each crew was comprised of seven men and one woman. Turner's Gender Discrimination Claim Turner alleges that Anadarko failed to hire her to work as an operator on the Mahogany because she is female. Contends that Turner is not qualified to work as an operator on the Mahogany. Anadarko maintains that a person qualified to work on the Mahogany must have a strong background in one of six fields of expertise. Anadarko also maintains that its operators must have the ability to perform all oil platform tasks. Reasoning that Turner Anadarko claims that Turner 3 failed to present evidence to show that Anadarko's stated qualifications are not requirements for working on the Mahogany or that the men who were hired failed to satisfy Anadarko's qualifications. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></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="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4400_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. HISTORY Keri is an African American man and a native of Ghana. He was on tenure track. He was subject to annual reappointments by the Chancellor. Although attempts were made to counsel Keri and to improve the situation. Keri was not selected for reappointment. Keri intro No. 05 4400 3 duced a variety of statements made by former students and colleagues indicating Keri was a good teacher. Keri argued that the students' complaints and allegations against him were baseless. He contended at least two of the complaining students were part of a conspiracy with Utesch to concoct false complaints. There was a lack of evidence that Keri was meeting the legitimate expectations of his employer. There was ample evidence of widespread complaints from both students and supervisors. At least one investigation was performed by IPFW that found evidence supporting the allegations against Keri. Keri attempts to show these were simply a pretext for his lack of reappointment. He introduces no evidence other than some race related comments made by Utesch.2 But even that is insufficient. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0349n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnston's motion to amend the complaint was properly denied. Less experienced candidate was selected for the position. Johnston attributes the decision not to select him as a supervisor in Detroit to either age discrimination or retaliation for This is the second employment discrimination action to be heard by this court arising out of the complaints against Agent Shoemaker and the alleged leak. Johnston was serving as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1548p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. before her employment was terminated. The factual record is necessarily limited and we must decide the appeal primarily on the basis of the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint. Inc. is a computer services company that specializes in proprietary investment support systems and computer disaster recovery. Was hired to provide legal services for the parent company and its five subsidiaries. Her immediate supervisor was defendant Lawrence Gross. Defendant Donna Pedrick was corporate Vice President of Human Resources. Gross gave her a favorable overall rating and stated that she was a valuable addition to the legal department. Kachmar exceeded her set goals for billable hours each year she was employed by SunGard. She was also given annual merit increases to her base salary every year she was employed. Kachmar's employment with SunGard was uneventful until the Fall of 1992. Kachmar alleges that she was misled by Gross concerning the available salary for Armst