Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Statute Of Limitations Cases: 11
The plaintiff brought this action against the City of Tallahassee for alleged racial discrimination, including claims that he had received lower merit pay increases than similarly situated white employees. In examining the case, the court noted that all claims that had not been filed within 300 days of the alleged discrimination were time barred and that summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate as to those claims. The continuing violation doctrine did not toll the 300 day period because each pay increase was a discrete act giving rise to separate disparate impact claims needing to be filed within the 300 day period. The defendant employer was entitled to summary judgment where the plaintiff had only provided conclusory, self-serving assertions that he had been discriminated against, and where the defendant had produced ample evidence to suggest that during the charge-filing period the plaintiff had not receive lower raises on the basis of race.
Read More
Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against the City of Hialeah alleging national origin discrimination. Defendants argued that class certification was improperly granted because the plaintiffs failed to file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. In the past the city had hired and then terminated Hispanic employees and classified them as
Read More
Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against the City of Hialeah alleging national origin discrimination. Defendants argued that class certification was improperly granted because the plaintiffs had failed to file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. In the past the city had hired and then terminated hispanic employees and classified them as
Read More
Plaintiff formerly worked in sales with Prudential. He was forced to take both short and long term disability during the course of his employment. Multiple lawsuits were filed on the former employee
Read More
Plaintiff formerly worked in sales with Prudential. He was forced to take both short and long term disability during the course of his employment. Multiple lawsuits were filed on the former employees behalf raising claims of disability discrimination, etc. A baseless Rule 11 motion was filed in bad faith by the plaintiff and the trial court imposed $10,000 in sanctions. The trial court also held the plaintiff in contempt for continued filings with state agencies in violation of a court order that required the plaintiff to seek leave before making any other filings or motions. The appellate court revered the dismissal of a retaliation claim because it was not time barred and remanded the hefty sanctions for reconsideration.
Read More
Plaintiffs alleged racial discrimination and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. 1981 between the years of 1981 and 1999. The employer denied the harassment and alternatively argued that the plaintiffs could only recover for harassment within the two year statute of limitations. The appellate court remanded to the trial court for a determination as to whether plaintiff
Read More
Plaintiffs alleged racial discrimination and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. 1981 between the years of 1981 and 1999. The employer denied the harassment and alternatively argued that the plaintiffs could only recover for harassment within the two year statute of limitations. The appellate court remanded to the trial court for a determination as to whether plaintiff
Read More
The Court concluded that claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts must be filed within the appropriate time frame set out in the law (180 or 300 days). However, charges of hostile work environment will not be barred if the acts constituting the claim are part of the unlawful employment practice and at least one of the acts falls within the filing period. Courts may consider all the circumstances (frequency, severity, physical nature, etc.) when assessing the hostile work environment claim. Furthermore, court are not barred from using their equitable power to toll or limit the time periods as circumstances may require.
Read More
The Court concluded that claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts must be filed within the appropriate time frame set out in the law (180 or 300 days). However, charges of hostile work environment will not be barred if the acts constituting the claim are part of the unlawful employment practice and at least one of the acts falls within the filing period. Courts may consider all the circumstances (frequency, severity, physical nature, etc.) when assessing the hostile work environment claim. Furthermore, court are not barred from using their equitable power to toll or limit the time periods as circumstances may require.
Read More
Where a plaintiff does not amend an original notice of appeal, or file a separate appeal from the district court
Read More
On June 6, 1997, Lynchburg College denied tenure to Edelman, who faxed a letter to the EEOC claiming gender based employment discrimination exacerbated by national origin and religion discrimination. After interviewing Edelman, the EEOC sent him a form for review and verification by oath or affirmation. 313 days after the denial of tenure, the EEOC received the verified from which it forwarded to the College for a response. After completing an investigation, the EEOC issued Edelman a notice of right to sue.
Edelman first sued in Virginia state court, but later added a cause of action under Title VII. The College then removed the case to federal court, claiming that Edelman
Read More
