Search : Labor & Employment Law
Number of summaries found: 8576
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor & Employment Law, Transportation |
| Title: | Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd. |
| Date: | 12/22/09 |
| Case Number: | b201509 |
| Summary: | In a class action wage and labor dispute, denial of class certification for limousine drivers allegedly under-compensated under California wage and labor laws is reversed and remanded with directions to certify the proposed classes where: 1) the trial court utilized improper criteria in analyzing the class certification request by evaluating class suitability as dependent on determination of the merits rather than evaluating whether the theory advanced by plaintiff was amenable to class treatment; and 2) plaintiff proposed two classes which satisfied the ascertainability, community of interest and superiority of class treatment requirements. |
| Court: | U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, ERISA, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Medina v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. |
| Date: | 11/25/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-2564 |
| Summary: | In plaintiff's ERISA suit against defendant alleging that it used an arbitrary and capricious procedure in terminating his short-term disability benefits and refusing to grant him long-term disability benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim for short-term disability benefits; 2) district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits as he had not exhausted his administrative remedies; 3) plaintiff's claim that defendant is liable for sanctions is rejected; and 4) district court did not err in not awarding plaintiff attorney's fees as he did not prevail on any of his substantive claims. |
| Court: | U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Musch v. Domtar Indus., Inc. |
| Date: | 11/25/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-4305 |
| Summary: | In plaintiff's suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeking compensation for the time spent changing clothes and showering at the end of each work shift at defendant's paper mill, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' daily post-shift activities are done under normal conditions and are merely postliminary non-compensable activities; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to reconsider in concluding that plaintiff merely rehashed the arguments he had made at summary judgment and failed to present evidence of extraordinary and exceptional circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6). |
| Court: | U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, ERISA, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |
| Date: | 11/25/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-3798 |
| Summary: | In an ERISA action claiming that defendant benefit plan administrator (Wal-Mart) failed adequately to evaluate the investment options included in the plan, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) the district court erred by conflating the issue of plaintiff's Article III standing with his potential personal causes of action under ERISA; and 2) the district court erred by ignoring reasonable inferences supported by the facts alleged and drawing inferences in defendants' favor, faulting plaintiff for failing to plead facts tending to contradict those inferences. |
| Court: | U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Becerril v. Pima County Assessor's Office |
| Date: | 11/25/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-17070 |
| Summary: | In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action claiming that a county office discriminated against plaintiff-employee by reassigning her because of her disability and refusing to engage in the ADA's "interactive process" after she had requested a reasonable accommodation, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence that plaintiff's supervisor reassigned her because her coworkers in the public service section complained about accommodations she received for her disability; and 2) plaintiff did not raise a triable issue on whether her disability substantially limited her in speaking, eating, seeing, sleeping, and thinking and concentrating. |
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Government Benefits, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Dorsey v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. |
| Date: | 11/25/09 |
| Case Number: | 09-3071 |
| Summary: | Merit Systems Protection Board's denial of petitioner's request for a survival annuity benefit based on the federal service of her late spouse is affirmed as the Board's determination that petitioner's husband failed to elect a survivor annuity benefit during the two-year window provided for by statute is supported by substantial evidence. |
| Court: | U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Evidence, Labor & Employment Law, Manufacturing |
| Title: | Ford v. Minteq Shapes & Serv., Inc. |
| Date: | 11/24/09 |
| Case Number: | 09-2140 |
| Summary: | In plaintiff's Title VII case against his employer claiming racial harassment, wage discrimination, and retaliation, summary judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) there is no genuine issues of fact with respect to the existence of racial harassment; 2) plaintiff failed to satisfy the fourth element regarding disparate wage treatment because he adduced no evidence that higher paid workers were similarly situated; and 3) plaintiff failed to present evidence that he suffered an adverse employment action because he engaged in an activity protected by Title VII. |
| Court: | New York Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Injury And Tort Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Affri v. Basch |
| Date: | 11/24/09 |
| Case Number: | 159 |
| Summary: | In a tort action arising out of injuries sustained by plaintiff while working on defendants' property, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where defendants did not exercise sufficient direction and control over plaintiff's work to overcome the one or two-family dwelling exception found in Labor Law sections 240 and 241. |
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Health Law, Injury And Tort Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Oddone v. Sup. Ct. |
| Date: | 11/24/09 |
| Case Number: | B213784 |
| Summary: | In plaintiff's suit on behalf of her deceased husband against his former employer claiming that his brain tumor was caused by exposure to toxic chemicals while working for Technicolor, plaintiff's petition challenging an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to a claim that plaintiff was injured by exposure to toxic chemicals and vapors on her husband's clothing and person that he brought home is denied where Technicolor does not owe plaintiff a duty of due care, as plaintiff's attempts to state a cause of action fall short of the Rowland criteria. |
| Court: | U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Admiralty, Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Sherwood v. Marquette Transp. Co., LLC |
| Date: | 11/23/09 |
| Case Number: | 09-2045 |
| Summary: | In plaintiff's suit against his employer under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries he suffered while working as a deckhand, defendant-employer's appeal of a district court's denial of its motion to stay the suit in favor of arbitration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. section 16(a)(1)(A) as: 1) section 16 is part of the Federal Arbitration Act, and as such, under the language of section 1, does not apply to any employment contract involving a seaman; and 2) section also is inapplicable, and defendant's motion for a stay did not rely on it. |