News

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

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

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

More...

Supreme Court

[07/20] Top Judiciary Republican to oppose Kagan
[07/20] Committee vote Tuesday on Kagan court nomination
[07/15] Specter, Yes; Wicker, No, as Kagan vote draws near

More...

Top Headlines

[07/30] Panel hits Rangel with 13 ethics charges
[07/30] FBI access to e-mail and Web records raises fears
[07/30] Ariz. files appeal as sheriff launches new sweep

More...

Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

[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...