Employment Law

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[09/05] Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Goldberg
In a lawsuit by a corporation against its officers and attorneys, order granting defendant's application to file a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, motion is reversed, vacated, and remanded with directions to deny defendant's application to file an anti-SLAPP motion where: 1) defendant failed to provide a compelling explanation for why he did not file an anti-SLAPP motion earlier in the case; 2) defendant did not articulate any extenuating circumstances justifying a late filing; and 3) under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's application to file the anti-SLAPP motion.

[08/29] Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[09/05] Townsend v. University of Alaska
In a case interpreting the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) as applied to state employers, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) USERRA does not unequivocally abrogate states' sovereign immunity from suits by citizens in federal court; and 2) USERRA creates no cause of action against individual state employee-supervisors.

[09/05] Pachter v. Bernard Hodes Group
In a claim brought by former employee-plaintiff challenging legality of deductions under Article 6 section 193 of the New York Labor law taken by employer-defendant, decision in favor of plaintiff is reversed and remanded after answers by New York Court of Appeals to certified questions resolved the case, where: 1) because New York Labor Law Article 6, section 193 includes executives unless otherwise excluded, plaintiff is covered; however, 2) plaintiff's cause of action fails because it is undisputed that plaintiff knowingly acquiesced over a period of years to the approach used by defendant when calculating her commissions, conduct that constituted an implied agreement between parties; and 3) as an implied agreement does not violate "section 193 nor any other provision of article 6 of the Labor Law," the deductions in question did not violate that provision.

[08/29] Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss
In a personal-injury suit, jury finding that defendant-employer was negligent is reversed and judgment rendered that plaintiff-employee take nothing where: 1) plaintiff's injury was caused by attempting to step around a loaded cart; 2) the potential danger of doing which was commonly known; and 3) defendant therefore had no duty to warn plaintiff of any risk.

More...