Jump to Navigation
experience. determination.

Free Case Evaluations

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Case Summaries

Civil Rights

[08/15] McNelis v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company
Affirming the judgment of the District Court holding that a worker, complaining of his termination after failing a fitness for duty examination and averring that his termination was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because the court found that he was fired because he lacked a legally mandated job requirement, namely unrestricted security access authorization required by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Committee.

[08/14] Hermes of Paris Inc. v. Swain
Affirming the district court's diversity jurisdiction in a discrimination and hostile work environment suit in which a plaintiff argued that the lack of complete diversity in the suit, because the plaintiff and the Hermes employee whose acts gave rise to the suit both resided in the same state, left the court without subject matter jurisdiction to compel arbitration, but the court cited precedent that established that requiring complete diversity would undermine the intent of the Federal Arbitration Act.

[08/14] Leiman v. ACLU
Affirming the district court's decision stating that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not require a school system to instruct disabled students in the customs and practices of Orthodox Judaism as part of a 'free appropriate public education.'

[08/10] Shultz v. Congregation Shearith Israel of the City of New York
Vacating and remanding a sex discrimination and retaliation case that was dismissed for failure to state a claim because a Title VII action can still be supported where an employee is given a termination of employment notice that is revoked before it becomes effective.

[08/09] Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center v. Hospitality Properties Trust
Affirming the denial of a motion for class certification in the case of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim because although a plaintiff may rely on the deterrent effect doctrine to establish constitutional standing and a plaintiff may acquire standing when their only motivation for visiting a facility is to test it for ADA compliance, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the commonality requirement because there was a lack of consistent policies or practices across the hotels owned by the defendant but operated by others.

Read More

Class Actions

[08/16] City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. BMW Bank of North America, Inc.
Vacating and remanding a class action case in which a New Jersey auto dealership appealed the denial of class certification claims brought against BMW's consumer financing division and its contractor for junk faxes sent in alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because the District Court erred in applying the test for whether such a class was ascertainable.

[08/09] Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center v. Hospitality Properties Trust
Affirming the denial of a motion for class certification in the case of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim because although a plaintiff may rely on the deterrent effect doctrine to establish constitutional standing and a plaintiff may acquire standing when their only motivation for visiting a facility is to test it for ADA compliance, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the commonality requirement because there was a lack of consistent policies or practices across the hotels owned by the defendant but operated by others.

[08/03] Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc.
Affirming the district court dismissal of a dispute regarding the California statutory right to one day off in seven where former Nordstrom employees alleged that they had been made to work more than six consecutive days on multiple occasions because the CA Supreme Court concluded that the six days must be within the same workweek, an exemption applies to those whose work is 6 hours or less for all days within the referenced workweek, and that employees appraised of the right to rest are free to waive the right.

[07/28] Scott v. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
Remanding the grant of a motion to remand to state court for using the wrong legal standard in a putative class action suit where a phone provider defendant alleged a class broader than that defined by the plaintiff in order to establish the number of members and amount in controversy to qualify for federal jurisdiction but did not establish that residents who purchased their phone in Maryland were also domiciled of the state.

[07/28] Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc.
Affirming the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend on the second amended complaint in the case of a former employee suing their former employer for vacation policies they said violated state law because the vacation policy provided that employees did not begin to accrue vacation time until after their first year of employment and the plaintiff's employment terminated during their first year and a waiting period for eligibility has been previously approved by the court.

Read More

Labor & Employment Law

[08/15] McNelis v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Company
Affirming the judgment of the District Court holding that a worker, complaining of his termination after failing a fitness for duty examination and averring that his termination was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because the court found that he was fired because he lacked a legally mandated job requirement, namely unrestricted security access authorization required by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Committee.

[08/14] Hermes of Paris Inc. v. Swain
Affirming the district court's diversity jurisdiction in a discrimination and hostile work environment suit in which a plaintiff argued that the lack of complete diversity in the suit, because the plaintiff and the Hermes employee whose acts gave rise to the suit both resided in the same state, left the court without subject matter jurisdiction to compel arbitration, but the court cited precedent that established that requiring complete diversity would undermine the intent of the Federal Arbitration Act.

[08/10] Shultz v. Congregation Shearith Israel of the City of New York
Vacating and remanding a sex discrimination and retaliation case that was dismissed for failure to state a claim because a Title VII action can still be supported where an employee is given a termination of employment notice that is revoked before it becomes effective.

[08/08] Light v. California Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Reversing summary adjudication of a retaliation claim and a ruling that workers' compensation exclusivity barred claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress but affirming the summary adjudication of a disability discrimination claim and affirming all judgments in favor of one of the defendants in a complicated case involving one employee's complaints about pressure on her to discriminate against a colleague perceived as being gay and the fallout from her unwillingness to participate.

[08/07] Arnaudo Brothers, L.P. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
Affirming the Agricultural Labor Relations Board's rejection of an agricultural employer's defense of failure to bargain, raised in an unfair labor practices suit, because the United Farm Workers of America did not make a clear and unequivocal disclaimer of interest and subsequent conduct consistent with a disclaimer could not render the disclaimer effective, but the award of make whole relief was in error because there was public interest in litigating the disclaimer issue and make whole relief was not appropriate.

Read 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.

CLICK HERE FOR YOUR FREE CASE EVALUATION