Finney v. Lincare, Inc. Plaintiff has failed to show that false statements were made to her during her job interviews; in any event, since plaintiff was given documents setting out the true terms of her employment contract, her reliance on the interview statements was not justified.
The defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
Mayhew v. ILA Local 1771 Although plaintiff knew or should have known about the basis for his claims more than six months before he filed this action, the National Labor Relations Act’s six-month statute of limitations was tolled while plaintiff diligently pursued his rights with his union and the National Labor Relations Board. Defendants’ motions to dismiss, based on the statute of limitations, are denied.
Dickens v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. The 4th Circuit dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a plaintiff’s ERISA suit challenging termination of his long-term disability benefits; the district court order denying both parties’ motions for summary judgment and remanding the case to the plan administrator was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
Gooden v. Dolgencorp, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-068-12, 16 pp.) (David C. Norton, J.) 3:10-cv-01059; D.S.C.
Holding: The uncontroverted evidence established that (1) even if he spent 75 percent of his time performing non-managerial duties, he was at all times operating defendant’s store and doing what was in the best interest of the store; (2) he was at all times responsible for the operation of his store, directing his employees, and apportioning tasks, and if he was not managing, there was no one else to do so...
Bell v. South Carolina Department of Corrections Although the Department of Corrections was not required to consult with the Palmetto Unified School District (which serves correctional facilities) when budget cuts prompted the DOC to develop a reduction-in-force plan, the implementation of the RIF violated the petitioner-teachers’ rights when they were denied the right to be recalled for open positions and when they were paid at correctional officers’ salary rate for performing teachers’ work.
Young v. Charleston County School District The record does not show that a three-member committee made the required report to the school board before the board accepted the committee’s recommendation not to renew the plaintiff-teacher’s contract. Moreover, the teacher was not given sufficient notice of the board’s meeting, so neither she nor her attorney was present at the meeting. The record does not reflect that the teacher’s due process rights were protected.
Industrial Packaging Supplies, Inc. v. Martin Plaintiff’s ex-employee – who signed a covenant not to compete and had access to confidential information – is preliminarily enjoined from revealing that confidential information in his new job with plaintiff’s competitor, and he is enjoined from selling competing products to plaintiff’s customers with whom he had contact in his last 12 months of work for plaintiff.
Gerner v. County of Chesterfield, Va. Reversing the trial court, the 4th Circuit says a female county employee laid off after 26 years on the job can sue under Title VII on a claim that she was offered a less favorable severance package than that offered to male employees who held similar positions.
Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of America A female production worker at a Roanoke packaging plant who alleges the male employee who supervised her shift sexually harassed her by stalking her, threatening her with disciplinary action if she did not have sex with him and told other employees she was a “whore” and had a sexually transmitted disease, can pursue her Title VII claim, as the 4th Circuit vacates summary judgment for the employer.
Boitnott v. Corning Inc. An employee who formerly worked rotating 12-hour day and night shifts but who later was restricted from working more than 40 hours per week has not shown a “substantial” limitation that would support a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act; the 4th Circuit joins its sister circuit courts to hold that an employee who can work a 40-hour work week but no overtime, is not disabled under the ADA.
Next Page »
