Recently in Employment Law Category

In plaintiff's employment discrimination, retaliatory harrasment, and hostile work environment action against his former employer, district court's entry of summary judgment for the defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in holding that the continuing violation doctrine is not available to plaintiff to overcome his time-barred claims; 2) district court did not err in its concluding that there was no evidence of pretext in plaintiff's disciplining, suspension, or termination; and 3) district court acted within its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend and motion for reconsideration as his hostile work environment claim was time-barred. 

Read Windross v. Barton Protective Serv., Inc., No. 08-2254

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 17, 2009

Judges

Before:   Boudin, Gibson, and Howard, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Gibson,  Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Brailey E. Newton

For Appellee:   David C. Hamilton

In plaintiff's disability discrimination action against his former employer under the ADA, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that the allegations of discrimination encompassed by his 2001 Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) charge placed a limitation on the claims plaintiff can present now, and as such, plaintiff could only pursue his action with respect to alleged acts of discrimination that occurred in the 300-day window preceding his 2001 MCAD charge; and 2) the district court correctly determined that, assuming the 2001 MCAD complaint was properly limited, plaintiff's remaining allegations did not support his claims of violations of the ADA.  

Read Thornton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 08-2162

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 12, 2009

Judges

Before:  Boudin, Lipez, and Gajarsa, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Gajarsa, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Michael Tumposky, Stephen B. Hrones

For Appellee:  Elizabeth A. Kowal, and Susan J. Baronoff

District court's grant of defendant-union's motion to compel arbitration and denial of plaintiff's petition for declaratory judgment is affirmed where: 1) the Union neutrality agreement at issue was not void ab initio; and 2) the arbitration clause of the agreement remained in effect.     

Read South Bay Boston Mgmt., Inc. v. Unite Here, Local 26, No. 09-1081

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 12, 2009

Judges

Before: Boudin, Lipez, and Gajarsa, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Gajarsa, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Gregory C. Keating, John D. Doran and Ronald S. Allen

For Appellee:  Paul L. More, Michael T. Anderson

In plaintiff's case against its competitor, involved in the life sciences equipment market, for unfair competition arising from hiring of plaintiff's employee, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court had proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims; 2) court did not err in refusing to dismiss the claims against defendants in Rhode Island for improper venue, nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for transfer of venue; 3) defendants have failed to demonstrate that the non-competition provision in the Employee Agreement is unenforceable, and as such, defendant's argument that they could not have interfered with the Employment Agreement fails; 4) defendant need not have shown that either the employee nor defendant used plaintiff's trade secrets, as disclosure or acquisition is sufficient to constitute misappropriation, subjecting defendant to liability for actual loss and unjust enrichment; 5) viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence supports the damage award; and 6) district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings as defendant failed to preserve some of its claims and failed to adequately develop others. 

Read Nihon Kohden America, Inc. v. Astro-Med, Inc., No. 08-2334

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island

Decided October 22, 2009

Judges

Before: Howard, and Lipez, Circuit Judges, and Woodcock, District Judge

Opinion by Woodcock, District Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  E.P. Michael Karcis, Mark A. McLean, McLean & McLean LLP, Bruce W. Gladstone, and Cameron & Mittleman LLP

For Appellee:  Stacey P. Nakasian, Duffy & Sweeney, Ltd., Craig M. Scott

In plaintiff's age discrimination suit against his former employer, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated and remanded as, under the three stage burden shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), several aspects of the evidence, taken together, are more than sufficient to support a factfinder's conclusion that defendant was motivated by age-based discrimination, thus raising a genuine issue of material fact that defeats summary judgment.  

Read Velez v. Thermo King De Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 08-1320

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Decided October 16, 2009

Judges

Before: Torruella, Leval, and Lipez, Circuit Judges

Opinion by: Lipez, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Carlos M. Vergne-Vargas

For Appellee:  Edwin J. Seda-Fernández, Mariel Y. Haack

In plaintiff's ERISA action against her former employer, an operating company of Johnson & Johnson, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as Johnson & Johnson's Long Term Disability Income Plan allows the Pension Committee to delegate its authority to render final benefits decisions.     

Read Wallace v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 09-1069

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided October 14, 2009

Judges

Before: Torruella, Dyk, and Boudin, Circuit Judges

Opinion by: Boudin, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant: Inga S. Bernstein, Ruth O'Meara-Costello, Zalkind Rodriguez, Lunt & Duncan LLP.

For Appellee:  David C. Henderson, Alexa H. O'Keefe, Nutter McClennen & Fish, LLP.

In an employment discrimination and breach of contract case, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in jury instructions with respect to SSDI as receipt of SSDI benefits creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee cannot perform the essential functions of the job; 2) district court did not err in the accommodation instruction as in this case, an employer's duty to accommodate does not arise unless the employee is able to perform the essential functions of his job with an accommodation; and 3) district court did not commit procedural error as plaintiff failed to contemporaneously object when the district court implemented the challenged procedure, and under the 2003 amendments to FRCP 51 the district court is under no obligation to give the parties the full text of its intended instructions at any time before the jury is charged.       

Read Decaro v. Hasbro, Inc., No. 09-1054

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United State District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decided September 2, 2009

Judges

Before Boudin and Seyla, Circuit Judges, and Dyk, of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.   
Opinion by Seyla, Circuit Judge.

Counsel

For Appellant: Tani E. Sapirstein , of Sapirstein & Sapirstein, P.C.

For Appellee:  Neil Jacobs, Harry T. Daniels, Shari G. Kleiner, Tina Marisam, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP

District court's dismissal of plaintiffs' suit against Puerto Rico Police Department officers and their supervisors for violations of their constitutional rights, as well as claims under Puerto Rico's constitutional and civil law, is affirmed as time-barred where under the identicality requirement, the causes of action asserted in the complaint must be based on the same substantive claims as asserted in the extrajudicial letter. 

Read Santana-Castro v. Toledo-Davilla, No. 08-1964

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United State District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
Decided August 27, 2009

Judges

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Torruella, Circuit Judge, and Ebel, Of The Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.    
Opinion by Torruella, Circuit Judge.

Counsel

For Appellants: Guillermo Ramos-Luiña, Harry Anduze-Montaño and José A. Morales-Boscio

For Appellee:  Rosa Elena Pérez-Agosto, Assistant Solicitor General, Irene S. Soroeta-Kodesh, Solicitor General, Leticia Casalduc-Rabell, Deputy Solicitor General, and Zaira Z. Girón-Anadón, Deputy Solicitor General

In an employment discrimination case brought by a former prosecutor of Puerto Rico, summary judgment and dismissal rulings for defendants are affirmed where plaintiff raised no genuine issue as to any material fact that would cause the court to doubt whether the plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to participate in a pre-termination hearing.      

Read Calderon-Garnier v. Sanchez-Ramos, No. 08-1284

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United State District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
Decided August 24, 2009

Judges

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Torruella and Seyla,  Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Torruella, Circuit Judge.

Counsel

For Appellant:  Israel Roldán-González, for appellant.  

For Appellee:   Eliezer A. Aldarondo, with whom Eileen Landrón-Guardiola, Eduardo Vera-Ramírez, Luis A. Rodríguez-Muñoz, Landrón & Vera, LLP, Roberto J. Sánchez-Ramos, Secretary of Justice, and Maite Oronoz-Rodríguez, Acting Solicitor General, were on brief for appellee Hon. Anabelle Rodríguez

In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination under state law as she put forth evidence that defendant regarded plaintiff as handicapped, that she was still able to perform the essential functions of the job despite the handicap, and that she suffered an adverse employment action as a result of her handicap; and 2) a reasonable jury could find that the  removal of plaintiff from the work schedule was predicated on impermissible discrimination rather than a permissible legitimate concern about her ability to perform the job safely.  

Read Sensing v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, No. 08-1865

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Decided: August 11, 2009

Judges
Before Torruella, Selya, and Lipez, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Torruella, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Paul H. Merry. 

For Appellee: John F. Welsh, Jennifer Belli and Bello Black & Welsh LLP.