In yesterday morning’s post, I indicated that people should be wary of drawing generalities from some recent decisions granting summary judgment for employers. Indeed, I went out of my way to note that each judge has their particular way of handling employment discrimination cases.
I also highlighted District Court Judge Christopher Droney for his statement
A few years ago, there was lots of debate among attorneys about whether summary judgment was still a disfavored 
remedy in employment discrimination cases in federal court. (For those readers unclear what "summary judgment" is, the Wikipedia entry is a pretty good start and George’s Employment Blawg has a nice post about how to best prepare
Summary Orders (in other words, decisions with no precedential value) by the Second Circuit typically are not worth noting. However, a decision released today is telling for the court’s view of race and gender discrimination cases and it can be cited by parties under certain limitations.
Some commentators have argued that the federal courts are increasingly hostile to employees who bring employment discrimination claims in federal court. One study, for example, suggested that plaintiffs simply have too many obstacles to overcome in federal court.
A new study on summary judgment practices by the Federal Judicial Center suggests that such a perception may be
Disciplining employees for violations of company policy is, as a general rule, a good thing for an employer to follow. However, when a company disciplines employees differently for the same offense, perceptions of discrimination (rightly or wrongly) can creep in.
A new case released this afternoon from the United States District Court illustrates that. In
It has been over a year since the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that where a public employee speaks as an employee and not a public citizen, such speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
Courts applying the decision have tried to impart some parameters to the Court’s decision such
The employer, in seeking summary judgment, sought to rely on the fact that the employee received disability benefits and was "totally disabled" under the short-term and long-term disability plans provided by Aetna. It appears that the employer sought to rely almost entirely on this aspect.
However, the court
found that the benefits determination that the employee was "totally disabled" did not consider her ability to do the job with a reasonable accommodation. Therefore, the benefits determination was not an "inreconcilable direct conflict" with evidence the employee submitted that suggested she could do the job with a reasonable accommodation.Continue Reading Benefits Determination Not Dispositive on ADA Issue
A few days ago, I noted that the new District Court of Connecticut website now posts the federal judge’s Chambers Practices online. For employment law practitioners, two of the judge’s chambers practices refer to the judge’s views on discrimination cases and the use or overuse of dispositive motions on such claims.
