Appeals court held that where an employer allowed a racially hostile work environment to exist for years, there was no violation of due process for a jury to award plaintiffs punitive damages but no compensatory damages. The law does not require compensatory damages to exist to justify punitive damages.
(Updated June 2008)

Massachusetts high court held that an employer was liable for discrimination when it fired an employee who would not work on his Sabbath. The employer made no effort to provide accommodation by seeing if schedule swaps could handle the matter or not.
(Updated June 2008)

Connecticut high court held that an employer who dismissed a disabled employee without discussing reasonable accommodation, to determine if the employee could perform his job with accommodation, violated the law against disability discrimination.
(Updated May 2008)

California high court held that the legality of marijuana use for medical purposes only applied to state criminal matters; it did not require employers to allow disabled employees to use marijuana as an accommodation.
(Updated February 2008)

Appeals court affirmed that a terminated employee failed to establish a prima facie case of either sex discrimination or age discrimination. The employer provided legitimate reasons for termination that were not age related and the alleged favoritism to women was not shown to affect his position.
(Updated December 2007)

Appeals court held that two waitresses who claimed they were pressured to retire and given inferior assignments and time schedules, had made a sufficient claim of age discrimination for their suit to proceed.
(Updated October 2007)

Appeals court held that an employee had no cause of action for sex harassment. He claimed to have been harassed by another employee, but failed to complain to the employer. He was fired after he sent the other employee an unsigned message telling him to “stop.” That communication was not protected.
(Updated October 2007)

Court dismissed a suit by an employee who claimed she was subject to discrimination and hostile treatment because of obesity. Obesity is not a protected class. If it is a disability, the employee failed to show discriminatory treatment on that basis.
(Updated August 2007)

Appeals court upheld a decision that an employee who prevailed in a discrimination case, but was not awarded damages, could still be awarded attorney fees, as permitted by law at the discretion of the trial court.
(Updated August 2007)

Appeals court held that a Title VII suit could not proceed because the employee failed to meet the fourth part of the prima facie test-showing that he suffered an adverse employment action on the basis of national origin.
(Updated August 2007)

Trial court awarded 13 former employees a total of $700,000 in compensatory and punitive damages for the retaliation they suffered, including dismissal, for their protesting an English-only policy adopted by their employer. Employees were allowed to speak Spanish only to Spanish-speaking customers.
(Updated August 2007)

Appeals court held that a company medical plan that excluded the costs of contraception was gender neutral, so was not sex discrimination, and did not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act since contraception is not a medical treatment for pregnancy.
(Updated June 2007)

Supreme Court held that the retaliation provision of Title VII is broad in application. Any action taken by an employer that a jury finds to be “materially adverse” to an employee is an issue properly for review by a jury.
(Updated May 2007)

Appeals court held that due to First Amendment freedom of religion, federal courts are precluded from subject matter jurisdiction over employees of religious organizations who fall under the ministerial exception.
(Updated March 2007)

Appeals court held that a city violated the equal protection rights of employees who were forced to transfer so as to achieve racial balance at all fire stations in the city. The city failed to show a compelling interest that could justify such a policy.
(Updated February 2007)

Appeals court held that an employer was not liable under the ADA for dismissing an obese employee. The weight affected his ability to perform his job. Morbid obesity is not a disability unless it is physiological in origin.
(Updated January 2007)

Appeals court held that a jury could find that an employer dismissed an employee with hepatitis because the employer regarded the employee as disabled and the jury can determine if punitive damages for malicious action by the employer are justified.
(Updated January 2007)

Appeals court accepted the explanation of a car repair shop that a white employee was paid almost double the pay of a Hispanic employee because the pay was based on the quantity of repair work performed per hour.
(Updated January 2007)

Appeals court held that where an employee is subject to harassment in retaliation for a previous claim of discrimination, a hostile work environment claim may exist even if there is no demotion or dismissal.
(Updated August 2006)

Appeals court held that an employee who suffered kidney failure that required regular dialysis was disabled. As such, he can pursue his claim for discrimination for not being promoted in favor of a candidate who appeared to have been less qualified but not disabled.
(Updated July 2006)

Appeals court held that an employee could win a judgment against a former employer who transferred him to a position 120 miles away from where he had been working so as to get him away from sexual harassment on the job.
(Updated March 2006)

California high court held that a cause of action existed for sex discrimination by a woman who was passed over for promotion in favor of a less qualified woman who was having an affair with the supervisor doing the hiring. It was part of a pervasive demeaning work atmosphere for women.
(Updated February 2006)

New Jersey high court held that an employer that allowed employees to take up to 26 weeks medical leave and then return to work or be fired was a neutral policy that did not discriminate against pregnant women.
(Updated February 2006)

Appeals court held that an employer had an affirmative defense against an employee who claimed he was constructively discharged due to sexual harassment. The employer offered to help the employee, but he rejected assistance.
(Updated February 2006)

Appeals court held that for an employer to give a personality test as a condition of employment violates the ADA when the test is used to uncover possible mental disorders as such a test is a medical examination, even if medical personnel are not used in the process.
(Updated November 2005)

Appeals court upheld a verdict in favor of a police officer whom the jury found to have not been promoted because he was a transsexual in the process of becoming a woman. Sex was the improper motivating factor in the employment decision.
(Updated August 2005)