Bankruptcy Lawyer, Albany Attorney - Randall E. Kehoe, Esq.

Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. Clarke
4 December 2009, 7:00 pm

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law) In a suit brought by two sheriff deputies under 18 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging a violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment when the sheriff invited a Christian group to speak at a number of mandatory employee meetings, grant of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Establishment Clause claim is affirmed as the religious group's presentations during mandatory employee gatherings gave, at the least, the appearance of endorsement by the sheriff's department, and thus, defendants violated the Establishment Clause.





Source: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

If you have a question concerning any legal matter, please give us a call at (518) 465-2211 or visit our main site at www.randallkehoelaw.com.

Duch v. Jakubek
4 December 2009, 7:00 pm

(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law) In a sex discrimination action claiming that defendant-supervisor should have prevented the harassment of plaintiff taking place, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff was not deprived of all reasonable avenues of complaint; and 2) defendants could not be liable based on information that plaintiff requested be kept confidential but which was conveyed to a co-worker.  However, the order is reversed in part where a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer defendants: 1) knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, of the harassment directed at plaintiff; and 2) failed to take appropriate remedial action.





Source: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

If you have a question concerning any legal matter, please give us a call at (518) 465-2211 or visit our main site at www.randallkehoelaw.com.

Lopez v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
3 December 2009, 7:00 pm

(U.S. 1st Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law) In minority police officers' disparate impact race claim under Title VII against a state agency that prepares and administers promotional examinations for local police officers under the state civil service system, their employers, various cities, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), district court's denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity for the state defendants, the state of Massachusetts and a chief human resources officers of the Human Resources Division (HRD) in his official capacity, is reversed where: 1) the state defendants do not qualify as employers as that term is used in Title VII; 2) HRD cannot be deemed plaintiffs' de facto employer as it exercised no control, direct or indirect, over the factors relevant to the common law agency test; and 3) plaintiffs' alternate theories why HRD should be considered their employer under Title VII are rejected.





Source: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

If you have a question concerning any legal matter, please give us a call at (518) 465-2211 or visit our main site at www.randallkehoelaw.com.

Senske v. Sybase, Inc.
3 December 2009, 7:00 pm

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law) In plaintiff's age discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as no reasonable jury could find that plaintiff's age was the real reason behind his termination, rather than his performance deficiencies.





Source: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

If you have a question concerning any legal matter, please give us a call at (518) 465-2211 or visit our main site at www.randallkehoelaw.com.

Wimbley v. Cashion
3 December 2009, 7:00 pm

(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Rights, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an action by a prison guard against her supervisor for allegedly terminating her based on her race and sex in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant is affirmed where a reasonable jury could find that defendant's different treatment of plaintiff and a coworker was evidence that the stated reasons for plaintiff's firing were pretextual.





Source: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

If you have a question concerning any legal matter, please give us a call at (518) 465-2211 or visit our main site at www.randallkehoelaw.com.

Francis v. Giacomelli
2 December 2009, 10:00 pm

(U.S. 4th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law) In a case brought by a police commissioner and his deputies following a highly public dispute with the mayor of Baltimore resulting in the termination of their employment, dismissal of the action is affirmed as, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, the complaint fails to articulate any claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Furthermore, the mayor, against whom the allegations of due process violations were directed, is entitled to qualified immunity.





Source: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

If you have a question concerning any legal matter, please give us a call at (518) 465-2211 or visit our main site at www.randallkehoelaw.com.

Anderson v. Suburban Teamsters of N. Ill. Pension Fund Bd. of Trustees
1 December 2009, 3:00 pm

(U.S. 9th Cir., ERISA, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an ERISA action challenging defendant pension fund's denial of disability benefits, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the fund's trustees did not abuse their discretion when they determined the date of plaintiff's disability; 2) 29 U.S.C. section 1054(g) did not apply to "employee welfare benefit plans" such as that of defendant; and 3) the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) applied by the trustees was a separate interest QDRO, and plaintiff thus could not share in any of the benefits allocated to his ex-wife.





Source: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

If you have a question concerning any legal matter, please give us a call at (518) 465-2211 or visit our main site at www.randallkehoelaw.com.

Bates v. Rubio's Rest., Inc.
30 November 2009, 1:00 pm

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor & Employment Law) In a $7.5 million settlement agreement arising from a wage and hour class action lawsuit, trial court judge's order vacating an earlier ruling that the 140 late-identified class members should receive notice and then recusing himself from any further proceedings in the matter is affirmed where: 1) when a judge is not disqualified at the time of making the first ruling, the first ruling does not become void just because the judge later disqualifies himself in the interests of justice and encapsulates both rulings in one minute order; and 2) defendant's argument that the judge's order vacating the prior ruling about the 140 late-identified class members must be reversed is rejected.





Source: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

If you have a question concerning any legal matter, please give us a call at (518) 465-2211 or visit our main site at www.randallkehoelaw.com.

Barbosa v. Impco Tech., Inc.
30 November 2009, 1:00 pm

(Cal. App., Labor & Employment Law) Trial court's grant of defendant-employer's motion for nonsuit in plaintiff's wrongful termination suit is reversed and remanded as the public policy in favor of the employer's duty to pay overtime wages protects an employee from termination for making a good faith but mistaken claim to overtime.





Source: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

If you have a question concerning any legal matter, please give us a call at (518) 465-2211 or visit our main site at www.randallkehoelaw.com.

Winslow v. FERC
1 December 2009, 5:00 pm

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law, Remedies) In an age discrimination action, the denial of plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest following a judgment in his favor is affirmed where motions for mandatory prejudgment interest were governed by Rule 59(e) and, therefore, by its 10-day filing requirement, and plaintiff's motion was untimely.





Source: FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

If you have a question concerning any legal matter, please give us a call at (518) 465-2211 or visit our main site at www.randallkehoelaw.com.