This case involved plaintiff Maria Davalos, a Hispanic woman hired by defendant Jacobsen Division of Textron as a probationary assembly worker, who was terminated shortly after calling in sick for four days. Davalos sued under Title VII alleging race and sex discrimination, pointing to her performance review and the retention of a white male colleague hired around the same time. On summary judgment, the court granted the motion as to the race discrimination claim, finding insufficient evidence that race motivated the termination decision, but denied it as to the sex discrimination claim because the record raised triable issues of disparate treatment based on gender. The court also denied summary judgment on the issue of mitigation of damages, holding that questions about the adequacy of Davalos's job search efforts and her family-based employment required resolution by a jury. The case was transferred for further proceedings before another judge.
This case arose from the plaintiffs' purchase of a cheese manufacturing company, which they alleged was induced by two specific misrepresentations by the defendant bank at a 1984 meeting regarding the company's losses and liquidity; the purchase led to bankruptcy, and the bank counterclaimed on personal guaranties for unpaid debts. After a jury trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs on both intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims as well as their defense to the counterclaim. The court denied the bank's Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find the statements were factual misrepresentations on which the plaintiffs justifiably relied to their detriment. The court also denied the Rule 59 motion for a new trial, finding no prejudicial errors or verdict against the great weight of the evidence. The case was then transferred for further proceedings on damages.
Bradley Corporation, a Wisconsin manufacturer, sued its insurer Zurich Insurance Company in this diversity case for breaching its duty to defend Bradley in an underlying federal employment discrimination lawsuit brought by former employee Edna Sarafolean under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. Zurich had denied coverage and refused to defend after receiving notice of the suit more than ten months after service of the complaint, citing untimely notice and lack of policy coverage. The court denied Zurich's motion for summary judgment in full, holding that Wisconsin statutes governing late notice in insurance policies require the insurer to demonstrate actual prejudice from any delay, that factual disputes existed on prejudice and timeliness, and that Bradley's notice fell within the one-year statutory window.
business & regulatorylabor & employmentcivil rights
This case involved a dispute over a licensing agreement for the board game Clever Endeavor between MindGames, the licensor, and Western Publishing, the licensee. MindGames sued Western for breach of contract and sought damages including $40 million in lost profits. The court granted Western's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that under Arkansas law, MindGames could not recover anticipated lost profits because it was a new business without a history of profitability, making such damages unduly speculative. The decision relied on the New Business Rule, which requires reasonable certainty in proving lost profits, a standard not met by unestablished ventures.
This case involved a former employee who sued his employer under Title VII, alleging that he was subjected to same-sex sexual harassment by a male coworker in an all-male workplace and was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the conduct. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment, first addressing whether same-sex harassment claims are cognizable under Title VII. The court held that such claims are possible but found that the plaintiff's allegations did not rise to the level of actionable harassment, as the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive and was not based on gender. The court further determined that the plaintiff failed to show the employer's stated reason for termination—violating a rule against striking another employee during a fight—was a pretext for retaliation.
This case concerns a commercial dispute in which Maryland Staffing Services, a Manpower franchisee, alleged that the franchisor overcharged for workers' compensation and liability insurance beginning in 1987, thereby reducing the franchisee's compensation under their agreement. The plaintiffs, including the company's individual owners, asserted nineteen claims including RICO violations, antitrust violations, breaches of franchising laws, and various tort and contract claims. The court dismissed the individual plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing, as their alleged injuries were not distinct from the corporation's, and dismissed fourteen of the counts for failure to state a claim, including application of the economic loss doctrine to bar the negligence claim and partial time bars on contract recovery. The decision rested on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standards, corporate standing principles, and Wisconsin substantive law. Remaining claims were allowed to proceed to scheduling.