On May 21, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled, in W.J.A. v. D.A., that a private party alleging defamation need not proffer evidence of actual damages to survive a motion for summary judgment and reach a jury. A-77-10, (N.J. May 21, 2012). The court concluded, however, that in the absence of proof of actual damages, the plaintiff is limited in recovery only to nominal damages (typically a trivial sum of money, such as $1.00, simply to recognize that a legal injury was sustained), and not compensatory or punitive damages.
Following termination stemming from a positive drug test for marijuana, a Native American female, appearing pro se, filed a federal lawsuit against her former employer, Mohave County’s Public Works Department. She alleged discrimination based on race and/or ancestry, a violation of her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and a violation of due process rights. On July 19, 2016, Senior U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona, James A. Teilborg, issued an order granting summary judgment for the defendant Mohave County on all claims.
“Common Sense” Shows The Value of a Well-Written Dissent: Southern New England Telephone Company v. NLRB
It must be frustrating to be in the minority of an administrative adjudicatory body and to constantly be forced to write dissenting opinions, as was the case for former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Brian E. Hayes (now an Ogletree Deakins shareholder). But if anyone doubted the value of a well-written dissent, they need only look to the July 10, 2015 decision of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in Southern New England Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Board, in which the court reversed the Board majority and adopted Hayes’ dissenting opinion in the NLRB’s 2011 decision, The Southern New England Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Connecticut, 356 NLRB No.118 (2011).
Earlier this week, a state appellate court held that an employee failed to introduce substantial evidence under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) that his employer’s decision to terminate his employment was motivated by retaliatory animus. According to the California Court of Appeal, the employee, who was fired for allegedly making false statements related