Quantcast

Tag Archives: Judge Claude M. Hilton

County employee terminated for performance, not disability (access required)

An Arlington County employee who was terminated during his probationary period failed to show his disability was the reason for the termination or that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. The evidence showed he was not meeting the ...

Read More »

Failure to exhaust administrative process dooms claim (access required)

Where a doctor twice operated on a plaintiff’s elbow and she cited only the second surgery as negligent on her administrative claim form, there was no jurisdiction over a suit about the first surgery because it was not administratively exhausted. ...

Read More »

No evidence that store had ‘constructive notice’ of puddle (access required)

A woman who slipped on a puddle of water in Target’s Gainesville store failed to show the store had “constructive notice” of the puddle. Her speculation about the source of the puddle was insufficient at summary judgment and her conduct ...

Read More »

Attorney malpractice suit over filing sent to DC (access required)

Where the underlying malpractice suit against an attorney who allegedly filed a defective statement with the Federal Communications Commission gave rise to the coverage dispute pending in the District of Columbia, the case was transferred under  28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).  Among ...

Read More »

Record supports denial of long-term disability benefits (access required)

Aetna did not abuse its discretion in denying an employee’s request for long-term disability benefits following a car accident. Although the employee initially received short-term benefits, subsequent examinations by both treating and independent medical professionals concluded she was capable of ...

Read More »

Race bias claim against aerospace contractor fails (access required)

Where the employee did not apply for a position, did not suffer an adverse em­ployment action despite his performance warning and did not demonstrate that other similarly situated employees out­side the protected class were treated dif­ferently or that the contractor’s ...

Read More »