Sentences with phrase «defendant employer»

Prevailed at summary judgment for defendant employer on plaintiff employee's ADEA and Title VII discrimination claims relating to alleged failure to promote.

Mr. Singer was dismissed from a senior management position with the defendant employer in 2016 after 11 years of service.

Representing a defendant employer in respect of a group claim of 13 claimants for workplace exposures with a combined claims value in excess of # 1m;

The defendant employer conceded that there was no cause for dismissal but also counterclaimed for damages relating to... Continue Reading

In our book, Rights on Trial: How Workplace Discrimination Law Perpetuates Inequality, we offer a comprehensive analysis of the system of employment civil rights litigation, using both statistical data from a large random sample of cases and in - depth interviews with plaintiffs, plaintiffs lawyers, defendant employers and defense lawyers about their experiences with and perspectives on discrimination lawsuits.

In Kielb v. National Money Mart Co., 2015 ONSC 3790, the defendant employer successfully relied on clear contractual language in order to exclude the payment of a bonus at the time of termination of employment.

In that case, the defendant employer gave the plaintiff twelve months of working notice.

In 2012 two juries awarded dismissed employees with significant punitive damage awards.8 In 2012 a jury of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Higginson v Babine Forest Products Ltd. and Hampton Lumber Mills Inc. 9 ordered the two defendant employers to pay $ 573,000.00 in punitive damages.

If the plaintiff made it clear to [the defendant employer] that he did not agree to the change made in September, 1954, the proper course for the defendant to pursue was to terminate the contract by proper notice and to offer employment on the new terms.

The defendant employer responded that it had every right to terminate her employment since, despite considerable effort to assist her in meeting the standards expected of her position, she simply failed to do so and had to be let go.

The defendant employer conceded that there was no cause for dismissal but also counterclaimed for damages relating to the plaintiff's alleged after - dismissal conduct, which allegations included disparaging the industry and using confidential information to compete against the defendant.

To give three examples: In the case of Easton, the plaintiff who was terminated after two weeks was awarded three (3) months» notice because she had left a reasonably secure job to work for the defendant employer.

The motion judge heard evidence that the reason for the termination of the plaintiffs» employment was lower than anticipated enrollment at the defendant employer's school, which would likely result in a $ 300,000 shortfall in revenue unless five positions were eliminated.

The court concluded that the defendant employer breached its duty of good faith to its former employee by asserting cause for dismissal when there was no reasonable basis for such an assertion and by engaging in behaviour calculated to financially impact the plaintiff.

, 2015 ONSC 3790, the defendant employer successfully relied on clear contractual language in order to exclude the payment of a bonus at the time of termination of employment.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded Alan Gordon («Alan») $ 100,000 in punitive damages due to the outrageous conduct of the defendant employer, Altus Group Limited («Altus»), when they fired him.

In rejecting the employer's arguments the judge, at paragraph 59, distinguished the case from earlier caselaw that had found in favor of the defendant employers, writing:

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a written opinion in a Texas car accident case involving the question of whether the defendant employer could be held liable for the allegedly negligent actions of an employee.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the lower court improperly granted the defendant employer's motion for summary judgment, finding that a genuine issue of fact remained as to whether the employer was vicariously liable.

In this case, the defendant employer could have avoided this outcome by inserting a valid termination clause into the plaintiff's employment contract, prior to acceptance, that specified either a fixed notice period or a notice period that was readily calculable.

The case involved a 40 year - old employee who was hired by the Defendant employer to be its Pre Sales / Post Sales / Data Services Engineer.

Justice Aitken made a finding that during the period of employment, Mr. Wellman had worked diligently for the Defendant employer and was never reprimanded, punished, nor advised of any concerns with respect to his work.

We were asked to research whether there was any chance of success against an employee acting on behalf of the defendant employer in a wrongful dismissal action.

A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, Roberts v. Zoomermedia Limited, dealt with the unusual situation of a defendant employer arguing that its own contractual termination provision was unenforceable and thus the plaintiff employee was entitled to common law reasonable notice.

Lord Justice Parker stated that an attempt by a defendant employer to compromise pending proceedings brought against it by a worker did not necessarily amount to discrimination by way of victimisation.