Cases
Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Immunity Cases: 10
In St. Louis, the plaintiff was an African-American employee working as an Associate Controller of Contracts and Grants at the Florida International University (FIU). Sands was the CEO of the Hemispheric Center for Environmental Technology (HCET) at FIU. St. Louis at 2.
The plaintiff alleged that while he was employed at FIU, he informed his supervisors of several federal guideline violations. He said he attempted to bring changes to the Sponsored Research Dept and bring HCET into compliance. Id.
FIU was undergoing a federal audit from early 2000 to mid- 2004. The plaintiff was even called to testify before the US Dept. Of Justice regarding the problems FIU was having. Eventually, the Federal Government fined FIU eleven million dollars. St. Louis at 3.
Afterwards, plaintiff's department was transferred to the Academic Affairs/Sponsored Research section at FIU, where the defendant became the plaintiff's direct supervisor. The defendant had plaintiff transferred to his division, where he was later told that the plaintiff's actions had hurt FIU's defense against the findings of the Dept. Of Health and Human Services audit. St. Louis at 3-4.
Shortly after, plaintiff was informed that the defendant decided to terminate plaintiff's position. He was told it was due to the negative reaction to the investigation and the university needed to look for more qualified employees for that department. St. Louis at 4.
The plaintiff eventually left his post stating that he needed to think about his future and family's financial security. He filed a two count complaint. Count 1 was violation of 42 USC 1981; the 2nd count was a violation of 42 USC 1983
Read More
Bylsma v. Freeman
16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1180a (M.D. Ala. September 30, 2003)
2003-09-30
IMMUNITY
Appellant sued her employer under the First Amendment, the Family and Medical Leave Act and Title VII. The lower court held that Congress did not validly abrogate 11th amendment immunity for claims under the FMLA. On appeal, the court reversed in light of the recent ruling in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 123 S.Ct. 1972 (2003), which held that state employees may recover money damages in federal court in the event of the state's failure to comply with the family-care provision of the FMLA.
Read More
The 11th Circuit held that state agencies waived their Eleventh Amendment Immunity to claims under
Read More
Hibbs was an employee of Nevada Department of Human Resources. In April and May 1997, he asked for and was granted 12 weeks of intermittently needed unpaid leave under the FMLA to take care of his ailing wife, who was recovering from a car accident and neck injury. Hibbs did so until August 5, 1997, after which he did not return to work. In October 1997, Hibbs was informed that he had exhausted his leave and must report to work by November 12, 1997. He failed to do so and was fired. Hibbs sued Nevada Department of Human Resources under the Family Medical Leave Act. The Federal District Court awarded the employer summary judgment on the ground that the FMLA claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Hibbs appealed, and the United States intervened under 28 U.S.C.
Read More
The male plaintiff was formerly employed by the University of Alabama at Birmingham campus police department. He alleged that he was harassed and subsequently terminated by his male supervisor when he complained. The plaintiff
Read More
Former USF professor alleged that his First Amendment rights were violated by the Board of Regents when they engaged in alleged acts of retaliation following his complaints to the Florida Ethics Commission regarding certain university affairs. The court followed the well established precedent that a state and its agencies are immune from 42 U.S.C. 1983 suits. Qualified immunity attached to the government actors because the plaintiff
Read More
Former USF professor alleged that his First Amendment rights were violated by the Board of Regents when they engaged in alleged acts of retaliation following his complaints to the Florida Ethics Commission regarding certain university affairs. The court followed the well established precedent that a state and its agencies are immune from 42 U.S.C. 1983 suits. Qualified immunity attached to the government actors because the plaintiff
Read More
The appellate court indicated initially that the trial court improperly applied Florida
Read More
Plaintiff, a 57-year old licensed physician, was employed by the State Department of Corrections as a psychiatrist. Plaintiff alleged that defendant terminated him because of his disability, perceived disability, and age. He thus alleged that his termination was in retaliation for assertion of his rights under the ADA. The employee's claim for monetary relief, including lost wages, lost benefits and punitive damages was dismissed with prejudice based on Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett. Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief were dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend where the complaint sufficiently alleged a physical impairment, but failed to allege facts supporting the requirement that the impairment substantially limited one or more of the plaintiff's major life activities. The Court held
that plaintiff's conclusory statement that the adverse employment decisions made by the defendant were done in retaliation for plaintiff having asserted his rights under the ADA was insufficient to state the claim for retaliation. Finally, the Court held that the ADEA claims were barred under the Eleventh Amendment. The claimant's State law age discrimination claim was also dismissed, as there was no evidence that the State expressly waived its sovereign immunity. Finally, plaintiff's due process claims were also dismissed with prejudice as the claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Read More
In a Petition for Rehearing, the Plaintiffs argued that Defendants had voluntarily waived their 11th Amendment immunity under
Read More