Monday, October 11, 2010

Employment Case Law Update

It's Summary Judgment Week, apparently:

--McGhee v Sovereign Healthcare of Bonifay, LLC, NDFla, October 4, 2010: Employer's motion for summary judgment denied after plaintiff presented enough evidence that the Americans with Disability Act could apply to her alleged discrimination based upon her depression. Likewise, the employer's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's FMLA claims were also denied because, "[w]hen viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, these assertions are sufficient to maintain a cause of action."

--Adams v Northstar Location Services, LLC, WDNY, October 4, 2010: Employer's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. A female HR director, who was suspended and eventually discharged after allegedly persuading management not to fire certain minority employees, sufficiently pled her Title VII and FMLA retaliation claims and withstood the employer’s motion for summary judgment. However, the plaintiff's Title VII action alleging gender discrimination was dismissed for failure to present evidence that that her suspension and discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of gender discrimination and her Equal Pay Act was likewise dismissed for failure to show that the male comparator performed “equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility” nor has she established both jobs “are performed under similar working conditions.”.
Noted in this case is the close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse employment actions and the Court's granting that certain paragraphs of the complaint be stricken.

--Hird-Moorhouse v Belgian Mission, SDNY, October 5, 2010: Employer's motion for partial summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss is denied. A 54-year-old secretary-receptionist, who was terminated after more than 19 years on the job, could proceed with her ADEA, New York and New York City law claims of age bias after she was replaced with a 16-year-old and after the employer made age-based comments, two days before her discharge, that he needed a “younger image” and that she was “too old for her job.” The employer's defense that the comments were merely "stray" remarks insufficient to give rise to liability under the ADEA also failed.

No comments:

Post a Comment