By Mitchell Riese and Mitchel Wilson
In motions before the trial court to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, in Allred v. City of Carbon Hill, denied the motions and permitted Allred’s claims to go to trial.
By Jim Cline
We are following other Labor and Employment Law Blogs on the Web and will bring to your attention some other articles worth reading. Here are some other articles we think are worth a look:
By Mitchell Riese and Mitchel Wilson
In Vicino v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff park ranger had sufficiently alleged sexual discrimination. The Court determined that material facts for a jury existed and that summary judgment was improper.
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Melendez v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, a U.S. District Court dismissed a female police officer’s lawsuit for sex-based discrimination against the Police Department of Bay Harbor Islands, Florida. The Officer brought the lawsuit claiming that the Police Department engaged in sex-based discrimination by failing to provide suitable changing areas for female employees. In a summary judgment proceeding, the Court explained that the Officer failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any actions taken by the Police Department were motivated by sex-based discrimination. Although the Officer failed on her sex-based discrimination claim, the Court explained that the Police Department might still be liable for creating a hostile work environment towards women.
By Mitchell Riese and Mitchel Wilson
In Otto v. City of Newport, a former police officer alleged his employer discharged him because of his age, but the Eastern District of Kentucky granted the defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment because there “is no evidence that the Plaintiff was qualified for the position, and there is no direct evidence of the Defendant’s discriminatory intent.”
By Mitchell Riese and Mitchel Wilson
In Sube v. City of Allentown, the Court denied the Defendant City’s motion for summary judgment and permitted the employee’s disability discrimination claims under the ADA to proceed to trial. As the City was aware of Sube’s injury and later terminated him soon after he sought to bring discrimination charges with the EEOC.
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Burns v. City of Utica, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a female firefighter’s lawsuit against the City of Utica, New York. The Firefighter claimed in her lawsuit that the City had retaliated against her for reporting an incident of sexual assault by denying her application for disability benefits. After reviewing a U.S. district court’s decision to dismiss the Firefighter’s lawsuit, the Court of Appeals determined that the dismissal was warranted where the Firefighter failed to show that any negative consequences stemming from the denial of her disability application was attributable to the City.
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Misewicz v. City of Memphis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by over one hundred firefighters against the City of Memphis, Tennessee. The firefighters sued the City in an attempt to obtain overtime wages for time outside of their regular work hours that they spent participating in paramedic training. The Court determined that the City was not obligated to compensate the firefighters for that time because the City successfully complied with a provision of the Department of Labor regulations that provides circumstances where public employers need not compensate their employees for time spent in training.
By Mitchell Riese and Mitchel Wilson
In Nelson v. City of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the City’s motion for summary judgment and permitted the plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim to go to trial. The Court reasoned that there was no clear evidence that the former officer could not perform the essential functions of the job and that the issue was proper for trial.
