Clientlogic vs Castro

This case was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in favor of union fees on the basis of the case

The Council filed for reinstatement on February 22 2005 [6]. Upon rehearing on March 14 2005 [7], Pain J ordered the Plaintiff to restrain from his previous property usage [8].

It is necessary to determine when L was removed as director of SPG and SET to ascertain the validity of the plaintiffs’ appointment as administrators. To establish L’s time of removal, one must first conclude whether the decision at the meeting took effect immediately, or if the subsequent messages exchanged between M and L, and belated lodging with ASIC, suggest a later removal date.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Mr. Wayne Beatty, the plaintiff brought a claim against his former employer Canadian Mill Services Association (CMSA), the defendant is suing for wrongful dismissal and contending he is eligible for increased damages due to the way the dismissal was handled. The damages include an additional 13 months’ notice and for the loss of a number of fringe benefits.

The Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case for trial. The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that Suders had presented sufficient evidence for a trial to conclude that the supervisors had engaged in a "pattern of sexual harassment that was persuasive and regular." The appeals court disagreed with the District Court and ruled that a constructive discharge, if proved, constitutes a tangible employment action that renders an employer strictly liable and precludes recourse to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. The Court of Appeals remanded Suders claim for trial. The United State Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement on the question whether a constructive discharge brought about by supervisor harassment ranks as a tangible employment action and therefore precludes

On a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. (721 F2d 550) The court held that Loudermill and Donnelly had been deprived of due process and that their compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s

Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 927, Defendant, Lauris Hollis (“Defendant”), through undersigned counsel, moves this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s action. Article 927 provides that the Peremptory exception of no cause of action and no right of action or no interest in the plaintiff to institute suit. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 923 provides that the function of the peremptory exception is to have the plaintiff’s action declared legally nonexistent, or barred by effect of law, and hence the exception tends to dismiss or defeat the action.

On June 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed a timely appeal of the dismissal with the Wyoming Office of Administration and Information.  A hearing was held on January 7 and 8, 2008.  At the hearing Bob Doctor lied under oath regarding material facts of the case. On February 7, 2008, Plaintiff was ordered reinstated and the dismissal of June 5, 2007 was reversed, which entitled Plaintiff to back pay, fees, and costs, and reinstated the property right to his job.

This appeal involves a dispute regarding the interpretation of overtime pay provisions outlined in the Howard County General Pay Plan (“HCGPP”). Appellant, Lynda Neser (“Neser”) contends that she was deprived of compensation to which she was entitled under certain provisions of the HCGPP. Neser filed a grievance with the Howard County Personnel Office. A personnel officer denied Neser’s grievance. Neser then appealed the personnel officer’s decision to the appellees, the Howard County Personnel Board (“the Board”). The Board adopted the findings of the personnel officer and affirmed the denial of Neser’s grievance. Neser then filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Howard County. The circuit court affirmed the

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

The court of appeals of the District modified the judgment of the supreme court by striking out the order for 'labor,' and, as so modified, affirmed it.The case was brought to this court on writ of error. A motion to dismiss and a petition for certiorari were

Jacquelyn Young hired the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to represent her in her federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer. The firm associate that filed the action made a mistake by attaching the wrong U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue letter. The court dismissed the claims. The law firm did not try to re-file using the correct attachment, or try to dismiss the motion. Thirteen months later, the law firm informed Young that the claims had been dismissed, and that the firm was withdrawing from representing her further with the case.

The statutory claim for unfair dismissal recognises that the common law cannot give adequate protection to the employees through the contract of employment, in that wrongful dismissal claim depends upon a breach of contract of the employment, usually in the form of inadequate notice being given by the employer. Many dismissals can be considered unfair that do not amount to the breach of the contract, for the wrongful dismissal claims look not to intention, motive, or the effect on an employee of a termination of the relationship nor to the procedural protections, but merely to the form of in which that relationship has been brought to the end. This paper will compare and contrast the different area between wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal.