Sentences with phrase «award against an employer»

Even when it does not, the damages awarded the employee in arbitration are nearly always far less than in a jury trial, and an arbitrator's award against the employer is a private matter.

If an accident is caused by a vehicle that is owned by the employer, and the driver was being paid when it occurred, there is a high likelihood that it happened in the course of employment and that a damages award against the employer is appropriate.

With this decison, the Ontario Court of Appeal specifically acknowledged the appropriateness of punitive damages awards against employers who discriminate, harass or fail to accommodate disabled employees.

Particularly, it has recommended that «the Government substantially increase the penalties available to employment tribunals to award against employers, including the financial penalties.

The judgment imposed a damages award against the employer for an amount in excess of $ 118,000.

Moreover, where the consequences of failing to properly investigate allegations of employee misconduct are becoming so large, including the possibility of damages being awarded against employers, employers may no longer be able to afford not to retain a lawyer.

Not exact matches

Noting that Goico's $ 2.5 million award includes $ 1.5 million in punitive damages against Wichita's largest employer, Brantner writes:

Any award made against an uninsured employer that is not paid in full within ten days will also result in a Supreme Court judgment being filed against the employer (including individual corporate officers), which may lead to seizure of assets of the employer.

One can imagine a situation where the employer has dissolved, the claimant succeeds in obtaining a substantial discrimination award, and the only person to enforce against is an admittedly discriminating manager, who, despite not being the employer, would find themselves liable for the full award.

The Attorney General, 2017 ONSC 1333, the Court allowed an employee's claim against his employer and two superiors for the «tort of harassment» and awarded significant damages against the defendants as a consequence.

However, employers must always ensure they respond with a requisite degree of objectivity and procedural rigor to ensure that they protect themselves against an investigation that could be seen as «inept or unfair» as in Home Hardware, ultimately resulting in excessive damage awards levied against the employer.

In light of the above principles and, in particular, the ability of judges to award damages resulting from flawed investigations, employers need to remain live to those circumstances where not only is an investigation required, but where they would benefit from retaining external counsel to conduct such an investigation, as a way to mitigate against the risk of performing a flawed investigation.

Ms Pereira de Souza brought disability discrimination claims against her former employer, and was awarded # 9,000 for injury to feelings and # 3,000 for psychiatric injury arising out of the discrimination.

In reducing the original punitive damages award, the Court of Appeal balanced the legitimate objective of «punishing» the employer against a requirement of proportionality based on the specific facts of the case.

The case also confirms that substantial damages will only be awarded against an employee if the employer can show it has suffered a resulting financial loss.

In light of this decision, employers should be particularly careful not to take actions that could be interpreted as discrimination based on family status, or else they may face costly awards against them.

The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded 20 weeks salary in damages, the amount specified in her employment contract, $ 200,000 in aggravated damages against the employer for the manner of dismissal, and $ 1,000,000 in punitive damages.

Additionally, courts have recognized a duty of good faith in the manner of termination and have awarded damages against employers who engage in bad faith conduct or callous treatment when dismissing employees.

Later, a jury awarded one plaintiff group more than $ 16 million in damages against employer.

Our aim is to carefully guide you through your options to achieve the best possible outcome for you, whether this is bringing a tribunal claim for discrimination against your employer, challenging a bonus award or negotiating an early settlement.

The firm successfully obtained a $ 95 million jury award in a sexual harassment case against a private employer — one of the largest jury awards for a sexual harassment case in U.S. history.

The Tribunal concluded the employer discriminated against the employee on the basis of family status when it gave top - up benefits for parental leave to adoptive parents but denied them to biological parents, depriving the employee of money and time with his child — and awarded him a paid parental leave with top - up even though the child was no longer an infant.

The lower court found ex-employee's failure to accept carrier counsel was unreasonable and that his requested fees / costs through his chosen counsel were not necessary expenditures, awarding only $ 1,980 in fees / costs as against employer under section 2802.

This consequence was recently confirmed by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in Rowsell v. MacKinnon, wherein Rowsell, a disappointed would - be beneficiary, was awarded damages against an accountant and his employer firm.

And the jury awarded Boucher damages of $ 250,000 against Pinnock, made up of $ 100,000 for intentional infliction of mental suffering, and $ 150,000 in punitive damages (awards for which Wal - Mart is vicariously liable as Pinnock's employer).

These statutorily - prescribed awards enable the injured worker to receive compensation without initiating legal action against his or her employer.

On the continent, consider Kerviel, who won an unfair dismissal case against his employer Societe Generale last year and was awarded $ 450,000 in damages by a French Tribunal.

[117] Unlike my colleague, I am strongly of the view that from the charge as a whole, the jury would reasonably have understood that they were to take [the manager]'s conduct into account in assessing aggravated or mental distress damages against [the employer], whether or not they awarded damages against [the manager] for intentionally inflicting mental stress on [the employee].

The jury awarded damages against [the manager] to compensate [the employee] for her mental suffering because of his misconduct, and [the employer] is vicariously liable for the damages awarded against [the manager].