Call Us 919-240-4054Cannizzaro v. Food Lion: The court affirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission, which found that the plaintiff’s accident caused his psychiatric conditions. The court concluded that, although not a physician, a psychologist specializing in neurological and cognitive psychology with significant experience with traumatic brain injuries was qualified to provide expert testimony. D’Aquisto v. Mission St. […]
Case Commentary
Ninth Circuit says individual managers can be held responsible for FLSA violations, regardless of bankruptcy
In Boucher v. Shaw, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that individual managers/owners — in this case a hotel’s CEO, CFO, and labor/employment manager — may be held liable for unpaid wages, vacation, and holiday pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA allows suits to be brought against individuals, in addition […]
4th Circuit rules for plaintiff in Title VII case
In EEOC v. Central Wholesalers, Inc., the 4th Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer. The court concluded that there was enough evidence for a jury to find that the plaintiff suffered from severe racial and sexual harassment in the workplace.
Today’s workers’ compensation opinion by the NC Court of Appeals
Leggett v. AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc.: A workers’ compensation case can involve a separate personal injury case against a third party (not the employer) if the third party was responsible for the employee’s injury. When these personal injury cases are resolved, the provider of the workers’ compensation benefits may have a lien on part of the […]
Another serious labor violation
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the granting of some injunctive relief to remedy very serious labor violations by a mining company in NLRB v. Spartan Mining Company. The company had illegally discriminated against members of the United Mine Workers.
Today’s workers’ compensation opinion by the NC Supreme Court
Castaneda v. International Leg Wear Group: The Court affirmed in a per curiam opinion a decision by the Court of Appeals, which had upheld the granting of benefits to the plaintiff. Judge Tyson’s dissent, which had argued that the medical causation evidence was speculative, was rejected by the Court.