(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.
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law) In an action for employment discrimination and retaliation, district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to produce enough evidence to support an inference that defendant's failure to promote was in retaliation for his protected activity; 2) the alterations to plaintiff's job were not materially adverse and insufficient to dissuade a reasonable employee from filing a discrimination charge; and 3) the court properly determined that certain comments made by other employees were either hearsay or irrelevant to the issue of whether plaintiff was terminated for a retaliatory purpose.
Brunker v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc.
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law, Sanctions) In plaintiff's disability discrimination action against his former employer, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer is affirmed in part, reversed and vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the disability-discrimination claim is remanded as, although plaintiff's impairments are not sufficient to show that he is disabled, the record contains adequate evidence to support a theory that defendant regarded him as being disabled in the major life activities of walking, caring for himself, and speaking; 2) district court's summary judgment on the reasonable-accommodation claim is affirmed; 3) district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to compel discovery on certa...
Burkhart v. Am. Railcar Indus., Inc.
(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law) In a sexual harassment and retaliation action, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's harassment claims were untimely because all of the actions about which plaintiff complained that occurred within 180 days of her filing were alleged to have been retaliation for complaining to the human resources manager, not harassment based on sex; and 2) even if plaintiff could establish a prima facie retaliation case, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that defendant's proffered reason for firing her was pretextual as required in the McDonnell Douglas framework.
More news & reviews:
Share: