Nine months after a jury found his employer liable for firing a reservist called to active duty after the 9/11 attacks, a federal judge awarded Michael Serricchio over $1.3M in damages on his federal claim in a decision handed down late last week.
I
t is believed to be the largest judgment ever awarded under The Uniformed
In employment litigation in federal court (let’s leave state court out of this discussion — it’s a whole different animal), filing a motion for summary judg
ment is seen by employers as their last, best chance to win a case before the matter is sent to a jury. After all, if the court grants the motion, a jury never sees the case and the case effectively ends (subject to an appeal).
Over the years, there have been various decisions that have suggested that summary judgments should be more of the exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, summary judgment still remains a tool that employers have in their toolbox to defend against discrimination claims.
But besides the rules and the decisions that guide how courts should rule on such motions, who judges the matter also plays a role in the ultimate outcome. As discussed below, this is important for employers and in-house counsel to understand when litigating discrimination claims.
Two recent decisions by two Connecticut federal judges illustrate that point. In one case, Judge Vanessa Bryant granted an employer’s motion for summary judgment in a fairly short decision involving a Title VII claim . In another, Judge Christopher Droney denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claims. Continue Reading A Tale of Two Summary Judgments: Looking at How Federal Judges May View Cases With a Different Lens
Sometimes I feel like a broken record (though in today’s world, perhaps that should be updated to "corrupted music file"). For a while now, it’s been apparent to most of us that employees continue to do silly things with e-mail and their social networking pages.
Add a recent case in Connecticut to the list of cases wher
e individuals
As I’ve mentioned before, sometimes cases hit the headlines for a day only to disappear into oblivion. But thanks to some followup reporting, there’s one story that we can give an update on.
Readers may recall a post from May of this year about a state attorney, Maureen Duggan, who wrote an anonymous letter about the state’s Ethics Chief
Late last week (when, of course, I was out of the office), word came down about another large verdict in an employment law case in Connecticut. The verdict, composed of $1M in compensatory damages and $3M in punitive damages in Tucker v. Journal Register Co. was first reported by the Connecticut Post last Friday here. (H/T
Ed: Updated to reflect newer posts and correct style
There are many employment lawyers who subscribe to the belief that "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished". A case out of Connecticut and the Second Circuit this month certainly won’t change that perception. Indeed, although the case may have political undertones, it sets up a classic
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
First, a warning. 
If your eyes glaze over at discussing the difference between cash balance plans and defined benefit plans, this post is not for you. However, for those employers who are considering converting their retirement plans or who have done so, a new case released this morning provides some much-needed guidance in Connecticut about
AT&T’s attack on the December 7, 2007 protective order is not unlike Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, sixty six years ago, both were unwarranted and doomed to fail.
So reads a footnote from a December 20, 2007 Order from the United States District Court of Connecticut denying AT&T Service’s request for a reversal of a
Do you like tricks or treats? Depending on your perspective, you’ll either find something to like or dislike about a decision just issued by the District Court of Connecticut.
Judge Vanessa Bryant — who has been busy issuing decisions and posting them online seemingly every few days — granted a summary judgment motion by an