News

News

Civil Rights

[07/29] Hawaii lawsuit seeks equal rights for gay couples
[07/28] FBI defends guidelines for domestic surveillance
[07/23] Lawyers seek injunction to halt military gay rule
[07/16] Two ex officers to testify against military's ban

More...

Employment Practices

[07/29] Initial jobless claims drop to 457,000
[07/22] Elevated jobless claims point to weak labor market
[07/22] Additional jobless benefits hinge on House vote
[07/19] Obama to GOP: Restore jobless benefits

More...

Labor

[07/29] Bangladesh raises garment workers' pay 80 percent
[07/29] Initial jobless claims drop to 457,000
[07/28] US military investigates contractor work force
[07/22] Additional jobless benefits hinge on House vote

More...

Labor and Management Relations

[07/29] Bangladesh raises garment workers' pay 80 percent
[07/29] Initial jobless claims drop to 457,000
[07/29] AP survey: A bleaker outlook for economy into 2011
[07/29] German jobless rate edges up to 7.6 percent

More...

Case Summaries

Civil Rights

[06/25] Kemp v. Holder
In an action for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act arising from the termination of plaintiff's employment as a federal court security officer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he had a "disability," as that term is defined under the ADA.

[06/25] Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation, district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where, for substantially the same reasons as the court indicated below, the record reveals no significant evidentiary basis for the verdict.

[06/25] Murthy v. Vilsack
In an action by an ex-employee against the Secretary of Agriculture for breach of the terms of a settlement agreement and for non-selection to a GS-15 position in violation of Title VII, an order partially transferring the action and partially granting summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the filing of an amended complaint after the 180-day waiting period expired could not cure the failure to exhaust; and 2) res judicata would not bar the filing of a new Title VII non-selection civil action after he exhausted his EEOC remedies.

[06/25] Ruiz v. Cty. of Rockland
In an action against a county for national origin and race discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff was not qualified for his position based on evidence of plaintiff's misconduct; but 2) plaintiff failed to raise an inference of discrimination.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[06/25] Kemp v. Holder
In an action for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act arising from the termination of plaintiff's employment as a federal court security officer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he had a "disability," as that term is defined under the ADA.

[06/25] Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation, district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where, for substantially the same reasons as the court indicated below, the record reveals no significant evidentiary basis for the verdict.

[06/25] Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.
In plaintiff's Title VII suit against her former employer for being fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment by residents of defendant's nursing home, district court's denial of defendant's motions for a new trial and remittitur are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that her complaints caused defendant to fire her; 2) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial on the basis of plaintiff's counsel's closing arguments; 3) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the compensatory damages as enough evidence supported a jury award of $25,000, which is well within the $200,000 cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3)(C); and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the punitive damage award and the logic of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) does not apply to this Title VII case.

[06/25] Ruiz v. Cty. of Rockland
In an action against a county for national origin and race discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff was not qualified for his position based on evidence of plaintiff's misconduct; but 2) plaintiff failed to raise an inference of discrimination.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.




Serving clients in the San Francisco Bay area, Northern California, and Silicon Valley, including the cities of San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Alameda, Sausalito, Corte Madera, San Rafael, Mill Valley, San Anselmo, Larkspur, Sonoma, Walnut Creek, Hayward, Orinda, Lafayette, and San Ramon.
San Francisco County • Alameda County • Marin County • San Mateo County • Santa Clara County
Office Location: 807 Montgomery Street | San Francisco, CA 94133 | Phone: 415-692-0462 or 866-590-6082 |

Fax: 415-928-1294

FirmSite® by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.