In 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.Posts Tagged ‘4th Circuit’
4th Circuit Reverses $10 Million Punitive Damage Verdict
Monday, March 8th, 20104th 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Thursday, December 31st, 2009In an unpublished opinion (Wesley v. Arlington County), the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer in a failure to promote case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Monday, December 28th, 2009In a recent unpublished opinion (Harman v. Unisys Corp.), the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of an employee’s retaliation claims against her employer.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 Summary Judgment In Age Case
Thursday, November 19th, 2009In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant employer on a discrimination claim brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The case is Inman v. Klockner Pentaplast of America, Inc. More after the break.
Contributed by Eric A. Welter.4th Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of Race And Gender Harassment Suit
Monday, August 31st, 20094th 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.
Split Arises In Virginia On Employer Liability Insurance Exclusion
Wednesday, June 17th, 2009After a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia holding that a business insurance carrier must defend an employer after a workplace shooting leads to a negligence action by the employee’s estate (see article here), a split has arisen between the Eastern and Western Districts. According to the article, a decision from the Western District reaching the opposite conclusion is on appeal to the 4th Circuit.
Although this was not an EPLI case, it is a good reminder to employers to check for any applicable insurance coverage after any workplace “claim” arises. If there is an arguable basis for coverage, the employer should place the carrier on notice of the claim to protect its rights under the policy.
Contributed by Eric A. Welter.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 Affirms FMLA Interference and Retaliation Verdict
Friday, March 6th, 2009In Dotson v. Pfizer, Inc., the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Dotson’s employer had interfered with his right to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and had engaged in retaliation. The court also reversed the district court’s denial of an award for pre-judgment interest. The court’s opinion can be found here. More after the break.
Recent 4th Circuit Decisions of Interest
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit — already famous for not publishing many of its decisions — has continued the trend this year with very few published decisions. Several recent employment law decisions, however, are published decisions and warrant comment here. We also note a recent unpublished decision that might be of interest.
4th Circuit Sends FMLA Case Back For Trial
Friday, August 22nd, 2008In an unpublished decision dated August 15, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the award of summary judgment to an employer in an FMLA case. The decision in Krenzke v. Alexandria Motors Cars is here. The case provides a good overview of the issue of what constitutes adequate notice by the employee of a need for FMLA leave and also on what can satisfy the “continuing treatment” test for a “serious health condition.”
4th Circuit Issues Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Decision
Friday, August 8th, 2008For those interested in the specialized area of Sarbanes-Oxley (“SOX”) whistleblower claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion dated August 5, 2008, affirming the finding of the Administrative Review Board that the petitioner’s termination as CFO of the respondent bank did not violate the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The court’s opinion can be found here. The VLW Blog has a post on the case here. Workplace Prof Blog has a brief post here.
