On May 13, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer, finding that a fired employee had failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext. In Owens v. Circassia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the court affirmed summary judgment
Articles Discussing Evidence Issues In Labor And Employment Law Cases.
Federal Court: Employee’s Self-Serving Testimony and Discovery Responses Did Not Satisfy Burden of Proof on Summary Judgment
In Buckmaster v. The National Railroad Passenger Corp. d/b/a Amtrak, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland addressed whether an employee had offered any evidence of discrimination or retaliation beyond his own speculative beliefs and personal disagreement with his employer’s legitimate business reason for terminating his employment.
Court Excludes EEOC Determination Letter That Contained Factual Inaccuracies and Conclusions of Law.
Courts regularly act as gatekeepers in determining what evidence juries are entitled to hear at trial. In Nuccio v. Shell Pipeline Co., LP, a federal district court barred an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) determination letter because its probative value was outweighed by its prejudice. No. 19-446-WBV-DPC (E.D. La. Dec.
As Bankruptcies Grow, E-Discovery Counsels’ Work May Become More Challenging
Paul Weiner recommends collecting computers and encryption keys from departing employees.
LegaltechNews
View Article (Subscription required)
Perfecting the Pleading
Goldberg Segalla’s Jim Rozak offers insights into why we should demand a well-pleaded complaint or counterclaim. Jim discusses procedural pleading motions and weighs the costs and benefits of bringing such a motion at each stage of a dispute. Jim explains the value of taking control of the litigation at the
Employee’s “Alternative Facts” Can’t Overcome Summary Judgment for Employer
As the week begins with new lexicon coming out of our nation’s capital, a recent federal court of appeals ruling reminds us that, in most situations, it’s the employer’s assessment of the facts, not the employee’s “alternative facts,” that matter when deciding the appropriate punishment for employee performance or misconduct issues. And, perhaps more importantly, the ruling reminds us that the mere fact an employee has a disability, or has requested or taken FMLA leave, does not act as a “get out of jail” card for such performance or misconduct issues.
Five Lessons for Employers from California v. Riley
In the waning days of its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in California v. Riley that police officers generally violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches by conducting a warrantless search of a smartphone seized incident to an arrest. The ruling turned largely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a long-established exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Although the Fourth Amendment and the relevant exception will rarely apply to private employers, the high court’s decision remains highly relevant for private employers whose workplace searches, like police searches, increasingly encounter personal smartphones, whether as part of a bring your own device program or not, and other mobile devices.
Social Profiles