Case Summaries

ERISA

[06/24] Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the order is affirmed where: 1) district courts must consider the Hummell factors after they have determined that a litigant has achieved "some degree of success on the merits,"; but 2) even assuming plaintiff achieved some degree of success on the merits, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that fees are nonetheless inappropriate after applying the Hummell factors.

[06/24] Edwards v. A.H. Cornell & Son, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her employers and supervisors, claiming that she was terminated in violation of section 510 of ERISA and state common law after complaining to management about alleged ERISA violations, district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed as unsolicited internal complaints are not protected activities under the anti-retaliation provision of section 510 of ERISA.

[06/24] Durakovic v. Bldg. Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund
In an ERISA challenge to a union disability-benefits denial, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) a fund organized pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 186(c)(5) is conflicted within the meaning of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008); 2) the district court should have accorded the conflict in this case more weight; and 3) no rational trier of fact could have failed to conclude that the benefits denial was arbitrary and capricious.

Read More

Labor & Employment Law

[06/25] Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation, district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where, for substantially the same reasons as the court indicated below, the record reveals no significant evidentiary basis for the verdict.

[06/25] Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.
In plaintiff's Title VII suit against her former employer for being fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment by residents of defendant's nursing home, district court's denial of defendant's motions for a new trial and remittitur are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that her complaints caused defendant to fire her; 2) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial on the basis of plaintiff's counsel's closing arguments; 3) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the compensatory damages as enough evidence supported a jury award of $25,000, which is well within the $200,000 cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3)(C); and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the punitive damage award and the logic of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) does not apply to this Title VII case.

[06/25] Ruiz v. Cty. of Rockland
In an action against a county for national origin and race discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff was not qualified for his position based on evidence of plaintiff's misconduct; but 2) plaintiff failed to raise an inference of discrimination.

Read More