Sentences with phrase «on plaintiff employee»

Not exact matches

«The court rejected (the plaintiff's) theory that the newspaper's publication violated her right to privacy because her post to MySpace was made virtually to everyone with an internet connection,» Zaller wrote in a blog post two years ago, asserting the case could apply to situations of employees posting on social media.

An employee and a clever plaintiffs» lawyer can always claim that denial was in fact discrimination based on a protected class (provided one exists, of course).

Parent is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of Electronic Data Systems Corporation («EDS») or Parent have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and / or in violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws.

«The Fair Labor Standards Act provides employees the ability to join forces in a «collective action» and seek justice from large corporations that they could not afford to bring on their own,» said David Lichter, a co-founder and partner of Higer Lichter & Givner, one of the law firms representing plaintiffs in this case.

Asiedu Nketia, the 2nd Defendant, said «No» and that they needed cash so the Plaintiff decided to issue two cheque payment vouchers on 7th December, 2015 for GH cents 2,000,000.00 and the other one on the same 7th December, 2015 for GH cents 2,199,340.00 and the said vouchers, according to the 2nd Defendant, were received by Gyanu Edgar, an employee of the Electoral Commission.»

The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of federal employees to block the online disclosure provisions; plaintiffs included 45 NIH researchers and other federal scientists.

As is so often the case, the defendant showed another female employee a photograph of his penis and commented on its size, and he repeatedly pursued a few of them outside of the workplace, the plaintiffs say.

The lawsuit is based on the plaintiffs» experiences, plus testimony from former employees and researchers who have «pulled tremendous amounts of «proof» right off the site,» Mr. Norton said.

Last week, lead plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs and Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, outlined their side of the case with reporter, insisting that forcing employees to pay dues to a union infringed on their rights to free speech.

In Sylvester, the plaintiff employee was terminated while on sick leave.

Upholding the judge's finding of liability on the 93A clam, the Appeals Court held that the former employer - employee relationship between the plaintiff and the individual defendant «does not stand as a bar» to the chapter 93A claim and that his conduct was «actionable independent of his contractual obligations.»

After doing so, the court found that there was no negligent act on the part of any school employee that resulted in the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff employee, Mr. Arnone, had worked with the defendant company, Best Theratronics Ltd., and its predecessor for about 31 years when he was terminated without cause on November 26, 2012.

The plaintiffs must prove that the Loblaws Defendants had a duty to protect their subcontractors» employees, and that by purchasing products manufactured in Bangladesh, they took on health and safety responsibilities that would normally rest with the overseas employer.

For example, in Jesperson v. Harrah's, the plaintiff employee sued her former employer, a casino, after she was terminated for refusing to wear makeup on the job, contrary to the employer's grooming code.

The court determined that there was no negligent act on the part of any school employee that caused the plaintiff's injuries.

While a bank employee went off to complete the plaintiff's transaction, the plaintiff leaned forward to pick up some documents on the counter and the chair went out from under him.

On a final note, the court ruled that the plaintiff's state law claims for, inter alia, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion also failed because those claims depended on an initial finding that the tip money used for other purposes was the property of the employees under the FLSOn a final note, the court ruled that the plaintiff's state law claims for, inter alia, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion also failed because those claims depended on an initial finding that the tip money used for other purposes was the property of the employees under the FLSon an initial finding that the tip money used for other purposes was the property of the employees under the FLSA.

Fees will amount to $ 1.9 million including an $ 804,000 premium to lawyers acting on behalf of plaintiffs in a class action against General Motors Canada over cuts to employee benefits

In addition to the Lead Plaintiff, the Iowa Public Employees» Retirement System, Orange County Employees» Retirement System («OCERS»), the State of Oregon, by and through the Oregon State Treasurer and the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Board on behalf of the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund («Oregon») and the General Board of Pension and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church («the General Board»), all were appointed class representatives and Cohen Milstein was appointed Class Counsel in the litigation in October 2011.

While this blog, and Seyfarth's Disability Access Team, are focused on disability access issues affecting places of public accommodation that provide goods and services to the general public (not employees, though many of our team members are employment specialists as well), this emerging litigation trend is worthy of our discussion here because it is an extension of the tsunami of website accessibility demand letters and lawsuits pursued under Title III, involving the same technological and other issues, as well as the same plaintiffs and plaintiffs» attorneys.

While the onus is on the defendant to prove the plaintiff has not mitigated, it would be impossible for any employer to prove that the employee would have been able to secure a particular job.

On April 17, 2013, Plaintiffs in the landmark mortgage - backed securities (MBS) class action litigation against Countrywide Financial Corporation and others, led by Lead Plaintiff, the Iowa Public Employees» Retirement System (IPERS), agreed to a $ 500 million settlement.

-LSB-...] a failure to fit in with other employees, and a failure on the part of the plaintiff to take responsibility for the difficulties that arose during her employment -LSB-...]

He also represents employers and employees on a range of employment law matters, including employment and non-competition agreements, drafting employee handbooks, counseling plaintiffs and defendants on discrimination claims, and advising employers on compliance with the complex body of state and federal laws governing the modern workplace.

He then volunteered to be the representative plaintiff despite the fact that, as a current Cominco employee, he had apprehensions about the impact of suing Cominco on his employment at Cominco (to Cominco's credit, it turned out not to have any effect on his employment).

In this wrongful dismissal case, the employer defended its decision to terminate Mr. S, the plaintiff - employee, by relying on the findings -LSB-...]

In this case, I find there was nothing untoward in the conduct of the plaintiff or its employees towards the defendant and, as a result there are no facts that justified the defendant terminating the contract of employment on the grounds that a productive working relationship was prohibited between the parties.

Although the plaintiff would no longer have had any direct reports, he would continue to provide direction to employees assigned to work on his projects and provide performance input to their managers for the purposes of performance reviews.

Following discovery, Crane Co. moved for summary judgment on all counts asserting that it had no duty of care to Ms. Jones, its employee's sister - in - law, and that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the alleged exposure to asbestos from Mr. Nichols» clothing caused Ms. Jones» disease.

The plaintiff in O'Sullivan v. Cavalier Tool & Manufacturing Ltd. 7 was called into a management meeting and told that he would no longer be the acting shop foreman and, instead, he would be transferred to work as an hourly employee on the shop - floor.

Plaintiff alleges her personal injuries were solely caused by the negligence of the employee, absent any contributory negligence on her part.

The law firms of Roy O'Connor LLP («RO»), Sotos LLP («Sotos») and Goldblatt Partners LLP («GP» - formerly Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP), along with a national team of law firms, represent plaintiffs in two certified class actions against Canadian Banks on behalf of current and former non-management employees for compensation for alleged unpaid overtime.

Kris has spoken at numerous legal seminars, including speaking engagements concerning «Motions in Limine: Protecting the Story» (Panel Member, NELA - GA / ICLE Trying Your Best: Employment Law Goes to Court Seminar, 2017), «Reductions in Force» (Professional Association Of Georgia Educators, 2012), «Settlement Agreements and Keeping the Deal» (State Bar of Georgia, General Practice and Trial Section, 2011), «Update on Employment Law» (General Practice And Trial Law Section Institute, 2011), «Employment Law in the Trenches» (General Practice and Trial Law Institute 2009), EEOC Atlanta 2008 Technical Assistance Program Seminar, «Firing Public Employees: Lessons Learned from the Perspective of Plaintiff and Defense Counsel» (Liability of Local Governments Seminar 2007), «Busting the Cap on Damages in Employment Litigation» (Managing Damages in Employment Litigation Seminar 2007), «State Law and Other Non-Traditional Claims: Crash Course, Questions to Ask, and New Developments» (Employment Law for the General Practitioner and for the Pros).

Based on findings that the «severe or pervasive» standard «unduly narrows the reach of the law,» the NYCHRL requires a plaintiff claiming a hostile work environment to prove «that she has been treated less well than other employees because of her gender.»

The two plaintiffs, Lawrence and Marilyn Keenan, had very lengthy periods of service (32 and 25 years), were 63 and 61 at the time of termination, held supervisory positions and up until the final 2 years of the relationship, worked exclusively for the defendant, Canac Kitchens.1 Initially the plaintiffs were employees but in 1987 were told that they would carry on their work as independent contractors.

The Federal Court decision in Thoi Bao Inc. v. 1913075 Ontario Limited involved a former employee of the plaintiff developing and operating a competing online news website that infringed on the plaintiff's trade - marks and copyrighted content.

A Norfolk Circuit Court dismisses on forum non conveniens grounds plaintiff administrator's suit against defendant railroad company under the Federal Employers Liability Act, over a North Carolina employee's death in North Carolina.

A plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident on the grounds of Camp Peary when the vehicle in which he was riding collided with a vehicle being driven by an employee of a painting crew, who plaintiff claims should not...

Kathy has also defended an international dialysis services provider against RICO claims in federal court based on allegedly fraudulent billing activity, represented a pharmaceutical services provider in a billing dispute with a chain of nursing homes, defended home health agencies in suits brought by employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and represented other providers and associations of providers as plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of matters in federal and state court involving issues ranging from contract interpretation to cash receipts assessments to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

In support of his allegation, the employee noted the following sentence near the end of the trial judge's conclusion: «On all of the evidence, the plaintiff [employee] has not met his onus that he was wrongfully terminated from his employment with the defendant [employer].»

In coming to his decision on whether the employer had just cause to terminate the plaintiff's employment, the Honourable Mr. Justice Joseph Scime made reference to a number of passages concerning an employee's right to work in an environment free from sexual harassment.

In refusing to grant summary judgment fixing the applicable notice period and dismissing the plaintiff employee's claims for moral and punitive damages in a termination without cause case, the Honourable Justice Margaret Eberhard in the case of Brownson v. Honda of Canada Mfg., 2013 ONSC 896, leave to appeal refused 2013 ONSC 6974, held that the answer may be that no, the employer can not terminate the employee's employment on a without cause basis with impunity.

IBM dismissed the plaintiff employee Richard Waterman without cause on two months» notice.

The Plaintiff argued that because the Town's email policy was never adopted by his Union and because employee emails were stored on a third party server, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails sent over the Town's email system.

For example, as arguing counsel, Tom has prevailed on behalf of bond purchasers, corporate civil defendants (three times), corporate civil plaintiffs (three times), a debtor, employees (twice), a habeas petitioner (three times), an immigrant, investors, an individual civil defendant, an individual criminal defendant, a local government, persons with disabilities, and shareholders.

As a brief review of the facts of the case, on October 28, 2008, the plaintiff employee Earl Chevalier was notified in writing by the General Manager of Mr. Chevalier's employer, Active Tire, that he was being laid off.

The controversial Honourable David Emerson featured in one BC law suit Wright v. British Columbia Trade Development Corp., (1994), 3 C.C.E.L. (2d) 254 (BC S.C.) where an employee alleged that he had been wrongfully dismissed in a letter from Emerson for a tasteless scam in which the plaintiff had forged the signatures of senior executives on gift cards accompanying skimpy lingerie to female employees, given on Valentine's Day.

The plaintiff employee, Allen, had a contract which provided for «15 months notice or pay in lieu» on termination.

The remainder of the litigation, against the United States government for the alleged involvement of federal employees in administering plaintiff's compassionate use protocol, was ultimately dismissed a couple of months ago on grounds of sovereign immunity.