Bucholz v. Victor Printing, Inc., 2012 WL 2522969 (D. N.J. 2012) is a case which analyzes the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). Specifically, Bucholz, the Plaintiff accused his former employer of discrimination on the basis of age. The Defendant, a printing shop, filed a motion for summary judgment following the filing of the complaint, and preliminary discovery.
Del Tinto v. Club Com, LLC et al., 2012 WL 5615257, (W.D.Pa. Nov. 15 2012) is an employment discrimination case. The case examines what is required for a plaintiff to meet the "regarded-as" prong of disability as well as what is necessary for hostile work environment claims. The case came before the court on summary judgment by the defendants, meaning the Court was tasked with deciding whether there were any genuine issues of material fact.
Highwater v. Animus, CA No.: 12-3206, (E.D.P.A. Oct. 10, 2012) is an employment discrimination case. The main issue analyzed by the court is when an action must be brought to be within the statute of limitations. These issues are not as easy as one would think because the statute begins to run in employment discrimination cases from the point at which the discriminatory act is performed.
Wagner v. Open Road Auto Group, No.: A-5312-10T3, (N.J. Super. App. Div. Jan. 10, 2012) is an employment discrimination case which analyzes the impact of arbitration agreements on discrimination claims. Many times, when employment is offered to a person, the employment may be conditioned upon acceptance of an arbitration agreement. In this case, the Plaintiff reported a supervisor's sexual harassment of other employees to a supervisor. After reporting said conduct, he was fired, for what he alleged was complaining to authorities. The arbitration agreement signed during employment stated:
Manley v. Memorial Hospital of Salem, C.A. No.: 11-2117, (D. N.J. 2012) is a case which is important because it states the standard of what should be contained in a hostile work environment complaint. A complaint is the legal document by which a party institutes a lawsuit. Within the document, a party must specify the facts which give rise to the complaint. As you will see below, courts look for certain elements in reading complaints.
Seltman v. Exelon Corp.,C.A. No: 11-07195 (E.D.Pa. 2012) is an employment discrimination case fromPennsylvania. The main import of the case is that it analyzes when the statute of limitations begins to run on a case of employment discrimination. A typical case of employment discrimination involves the discrete act making up the discrimination, the termination, and then a filing of a charge with the respective administrative agencies. Theoretically, these times should all be concrete, however more often than not it is a nebulous concept. This case involves some discussion of waiver of rights but the crux of the case is the timeliness analysis.
Randler v. Kountry Kraft Inc., No. 1:11-CV-474, (M.D.Pa. October 24, 2011) is an employment case related to termination.Pennsylvania is known as an "at-will" employment state. This means that generally, a person may be terminated for any reason, as long as it is not illegal. However, as employment law has evolved so has the idea of wrongful termination. In an "at-will" state likePennsylvania, a public policy exception must be found for a termination to be found wrongful if it does not otherwise invoke race, gender, or religious discrimination statutes. This case provides an example of a court allowing an action to go to trial on this idea, although does not approve or disapprove of the public policy.
In Bourke v. Kararas, a client brought actions alleging negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of contract against a bar association's lawyer referral service for referring her to an attorney who committed malpractice by failing to file her suit within the applicable statute of limitations. 746 A.2d 642, (Pa.Super 2000). The Superior Court held that the client did not state a claim that the bar association's lawyer referral service was negligent in referring her to the attorney. The reasoning for this was because the court deduced that to allow such an action would inhibit lawyers and bar association in providing referrals.
"An attorney who commits malpractice is liable to his client for any reasonably foreseeable loss caused by his negligence including emotional distress resulting from the loss of liberty."
Unsuccessful plaintiffs in civil right cases may now breathe easier when it comes to awarding attorney's fees. As recently held in Fox v. Vice, plaintiffs will only be responsible for defendants' fees arising solely due to a frivolous claim. Non-frivolous cases, and mixed cases which would have incurred the same fees absent the frivolous claim, are exempt.