Boynton, Waldron, Doleac, Woodman & Scott, P.A.




Legal News

News

Business Insurance Litigation Personal Injury Labor

Business

[11/07] Man attempts to pay $32 bar tab with gum wrappers
[11/06] Retiree seeks return on 10,000 Obama front pages
[10/24] No rest for dead at foreclosed Mich. funeral home
[10/24] Goof leads Wis. store to sells diesel for 59 cents
[11/11] Wartime economy boosts real estate near bases

More...


Insurance

[11/14] Assured Guaranty buys FSA Holdings for $722M
[11/13] Zurich Financial 3Q profits plummet 90 percent
[11/13] Aetna tells employees it will pursue staff cuts
[11/12] Swiss Life warns of 2008 loss excluding one-offs
[11/12] Baucus adds to calls for health overhaul in '09

More...


Litigation

[11/14] Mass. settles with Big Dig contractor for $21M
[11/14] Tech billionaire to be sentenced for fraud Friday
[11/14] Indictment drafted in Blackwater shooting
[11/13] Study: Unlicensed stories reel in Internet readers
[11/13] China agrees to loosen controls on news providers

More...


Personal Injury

[11/18] Maine man sheds 140 pounds to join the Marines
[11/12] W.Va. man beats health insurer in court over $40
[11/05] Teen compacted in Wis. garbage truck, survives
[10/29] University of Minnesota makes flu shot record try
[10/22] Man to be reimbursed after mice munch on his cash

More...


Labor

[10/22] Did he whack the 'stache? Ohio officer suspended
[11/18] Mass. factory raided last year settles worker suit
[11/18] Oral Roberts University to lay off 100 employees
[11/18] Oral Roberts University to lay off 100 employees
[11/18] Oral Roberts University to lay off 100 employees

More...

Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

Labor & Employment Law

[11/18] Stover v. Hattiesburg Pub. Sch. Dist.
In an employee's suit alleging race and sex discrimination, retaliation, and violation of the Equal Pay Act, judgment for defendant and denial of a new trial motion are affirmed where: 1) defendant was entitled to summary judgment on a constructive-discharge claim; 2) there was no reversible error in several challenged evidentiary rulings; 3) a "same actor" jury instruction was a correct statement of the law; and 4) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Award of attorney's fees is reversed as the award was improperly calculated and defendant was not entitled to attorney's fees.

[11/18] Phillips v. Mathews
In a suit alleging interference and retaliation by a state-government employer in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff had given proper notice to her employer that she required FMLA leave, but this disputed fact was not material since plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her termination was related to her FMLA leave; and 2) plaintiff had exercised rights under FMLA sufficient to subsequently bring a retaliation claim when she was terminated, but defendant demonstrated that she had been terminated for non-FMLA reasons.

[11/17] Busseto Foods, Inc. v. Laizure
In a bankruptcy case in which debtor had embezzled and subsequently repaid funds from his employer, and employer had later been required to return those funds to the bankruptcy estate, dismissal of employer's complaint alleging that it had a nondischargeable claim against debtor is reversed where a creditor that is required to return to the trustee a payment from the debtor made within the ninety-day preference period still maintains a claim against the debtor for a nondischargeable claim.

[11/17] Seals v. General Motors Corp.
In an intentional tort claim action against defendant-employer General Motors for injuries suffered at defendant's metal stamping plant, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the release form signed by plaintiff-employee barred plaintiff's claim as a matter of law.

[11/17] Alleyne v. American Airlines
Dismissal of discrimination claim brought pursuant to Title VII against defendant-employer is affirmed where plaintiff's claim of employment discrimination accrued for statute of limitations purposes on the date when plaintiff learned of his allegedly discriminatory loss of seniority, and not on the subsequent date of the neutral termination of his employment.

More...

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Copyright © 2008 by Boynton, Waldron, Doleac, Woodman & Scott, P.A. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.