retaliation
Wal-Mart did not discriminate against pregnant employee, 7th Circuit rules
June 12, 2012
Jenny MontgomeryThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a woman failed to prove her claims of discrimination, retaliation and other complaints
against her former employer.
More7th Circuit affirms court in retaliation claim
June 8, 2012
Jenny MontgomeryA man who claimed he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for claiming racial discrimination at his workplace was fired
for just cause, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
MoreRolls-Royce must answer federal whistleblower suit on military engines
June 5, 2012
Dave StaffordRolls-Royce must answer whistleblowers’ allegations that the company violated manufacturing standards, concealed defects
in military aircraft engines, and retaliated against workers who raised concerns, a federal judge ruled Monday.
MoreWoman can't prove pregnancy discrimination
January 12, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for a stone company after finding a woman couldn't prove the
company knew she was pregnant when it decided to relocate her to another office.
MoreMan not fired for being 'whistle-blower'
November 19, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff's former company, finding no evidence
the company fired him in retaliation for being a whistle-blower.
MoreSponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.