In Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent to create a genuine issue of material fact, precluding summary judgment for the employer. A copy of the opinion is here. More after the break.
Archive for the ‘4th Circuit’ Category
4th Circuit Remands Discrimination Case For Trial
Saturday, May 1st, 20104th Circuit Reverses $10 Million Punitive Damage Verdict
Monday, March 8th, 2010In Worldwide Network Services, LLC v. DynCorp International, LLC, the Fourth Circuit reversed a $10 million punitive damages award in favor of the plaintiff on the grounds that there was no evidence that the defendant acted with the knowledge that its conduct violated federal law. Our prior post about the jury verdict can be found here. More after the break.
Contributed by Eric A. Welter.4th Circuit Holds That State Law Does Not Override Title VII Claim
Monday, February 15th, 2010In King v. McMillan, the Fourth Circuit held that the Supremacy Clause does not allow state law to override a Title VII claim brought against an individual in his official capacity. More after the break.
4th Circuit Allows De Novo Review Of SOX Appeal
Friday, January 15th, 2010In Stone v. Instrumentation Laboratory Co., a case of first impression, the Fourth Circuit addressed the issue of whether a Sarbanes-Oxley (“SOX”) whistleblower claimant has the right to a de novo review by a district court while the claim is pending on an administrative appeal. More after the break.
Fourth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment In Failure To Promote Case
Thursday, December 31st, 2009In an unpublished opinion (Wesley v. Arlington County), the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer in a failure to promote case brought by a firefighter. More after the break.
Contributed by Eric A. Welter.4th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Retaliation Claims Based on Twombly
Monday, December 28th, 2009In a recent unpublished opinion (Harman v. Unisys Corp.), the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of an employee’s retaliation claims against her employer. The plaintiff, Kathryn Harman, brought suit against Unisys Corporation and several employees, alleging gender, age, and race discrimination and retaliation, as well as violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). More after the break.
Contributed by Eric A. Welter.4th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of False Claims Act Retaliation Claim
Thursday, August 27th, 2009In US ex rel Elms v. Accenture LLP, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a retaliation claim under the Federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733. Plaintiff Peter Elms had appealed from the district court’s dismissal of his qui tam action under the FCA. Elms’ case alleged that his former employer, Accenture, submitted false claims to the government regarding a cost-plus contract and that his employment was terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the FCA. A copy of the court’s unpublished opinion is here. More after the break.
4th Circuit Issues Borrowed Servant Decision
Friday, July 17th, 2009In Ladd v. Research Triangle Inst., the Fourth Circuit addressed the borrowed servant doctrine under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHCWA). More after the break.
4th Circuit Affirms Jury Award To Warden
Tuesday, July 14th, 2009In Anthony v. Ward, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a jury award of $510,000 to plaintiff Calvin Anthony, former warden of Lee Correctional Institution in South Carolina. The judgment by the federal district court found defendants Robert Ward and Charles Sheppard, officials of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC), guilty of civil conspiracy under South Carolina law. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit upheld the judgment, finding that the defendants conspired to force Anthony’s termination. More after the break.
4th Circuit Decides Public Employee First Amendment Case
Thursday, June 4th, 2009In Fields v. Prater, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision by concluding that plaintiff Tammy Fields was wrongfully denied a position as the local director of a county department of social services based on her political affiliation. This was in violation of her First Amendment rights. However, the court stated that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity based on the lack of clarity in the law at the time of the decision. More after the break.
4th Circuit Decides Case on Finality of Federal EEOC Decisions
Thursday, June 4th, 2009The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Cochran v. Holder addresses the issue of when a decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) becomes “final” for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). The EEOC regulation allows federal employees to file a civil action for illegal discrimination by their employer within 90 days of a “final” adverse decision by the Commission. More after the break.
4th Circuit Reverses Stored Communications Act Verdict
Thursday, March 19th, 2009On March 18, 2009 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion in the case of Van Alstyne v. Electronic Scriptorium, Limited. The case involved claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18 USC § 2707(a) (“SCA”). Van Alstyne filed the lawsuit after discovering that her former employer was accessing her personal email account after she left the company. A copy of the opinion is here. More after the break.
Contributed by Eric A. Welter.4th Circuit Remands ADEA Case For Discovery
Friday, January 9th, 2009Reasonableness Not Required For Participation Retaliation Claim
Tuesday, January 6th, 20094th Circuit Issues SOX Decision
Monday, January 5th, 2009In Platone vs. United States Department of Labor, the Fourth Circuit decided in a published opinion dated December 3, 2008, that a complainant must alert management to more than the fact that the company’s near term profits were effected by billing discrepancies in order to meet the standard of definitively and specifically alleging mail or wire fraud for purposes of the Sarbanes-Oxley whistle blower provisions. A copy of the decision is here.
