Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion Digests / Employment Law (page 30)

Employment Law

Hostile environment claim against grocery goes forward (access required)

Where a former employee failed to plead facts showing Food Lion denied her requested accommodation and conceded that her defamation claims were time-barred, those counts were dismissed. But because she plausibly alleged she experienced a hostile work environment due to ...

Read More »

Virginia Tech not liable for hostile work environment, bias (access required)

Where a former employee did not show severe or pervasive harassment or that she was constructively discharged, Virginia Tech and the state prevailed on hostile work environment, discrimination and retaliation claims. Background On June 19, 2018, Dr. Kimberly Renae Andrews ...

Read More »

PTSD plaintiff fails to allege bias, hostile work environment (access required)

Where an employee’s complaint did not allege facts showing her race or gender were reasons for her employer’s actions, that she experienced a hostile work environment or suffered an adverse employment action, her claims were dismissed, albeit with leave to ...

Read More »

Termination was not based on PTSD diagnosis (access required)

Although the employee argued that temporal proximity, a letter of recommendation and new evidence submitted in response to the Report and Recommendation were sufficient to avoid summary judgment, her arguments and materials failed to demonstrate that PTSD diagnosis was the ...

Read More »

Disparate pay claims against Walmart dismissed (access required)

Eight former female employees failed to provide sufficient facts to support their allegations that Walmart discriminated against them on the basis of sex by paying them less than similarly qualified or less-qualified men and by failing to promote them in ...

Read More »

Reprimand was not ‘materially adverse action’ (access required)

Although an employee argued that Fairfax County’s written reprimand marked him a “wrongdoer” and made him “ineligible for promotion,” there was insufficient evidence that he was ineligible for a promotion or that the reprimand otherwise affected the terms and conditions ...

Read More »