Skip to main content
Richard E Hayber

Richard Hayber’s Legal Cases

8 total

  • Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Discrimination
    Outcome:
    Reversed grant of summary judgment
    Description:
    Successful in winning reversal of trial court grant of summary judgment at Connecticut Supreme Court. Plaintiff will now have a trial on the issue of whether he was terminated in violation of Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (disability discrimination)
  • Osborn v. Home Depot,USA Inc., 518 F.Supp.2d 377 (D.Conn. 2007)

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    Denial of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
    Description:
    Osborn v. Home Depot,USA Inc., 518 F.Supp.2d 377 (D.Conn. 2007) (distinguishing Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., --- U.S. ----, ----, 127 S.Ct. 2162, 2167, 167 L.Ed.2d 982 (2007) and permitting equal pay act and gender discrimination case to proceed to trial).
  • Neary v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 517 F.Supp.2d 606, D.Conn.,2007.(September 27, 2007)

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    Denial of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
    Description:
    Neary v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 517 F.Supp.2d 606, D.Conn.,2007.(September 27, 2007) (rejecting company’s claim that auto-damage appraiser is an exempt employee and granting motion to proceed as a collective action).
  • Lewczyk v. Department of Health, 2002 WL 31894801 (Conn.Super.), 33 Conn. L. Rptr. 681 (2002)

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    Denial of Motion for Summary Judgment
    Description:
    Lewczyk v. Department of Health, 2002 WL 31894801 (Conn.Super.), 33 Conn. L. Rptr. 681 (2002) (holding that retaliation against witness at CHRO hearing can sue under federal witness tampering statute (42 U.S.C. Section 1985)).
  • Neary v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 518 F.Supp.2d 377 (D.Conn. 2007)

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    D's Summ Judg denied, collective action certified
    Description:
    Collective action on behalf of class of automobile damage appraisers. Court denied Employer's motion for summary judgment, rejecting claim that automobile appraisers are exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Court also granted Employee's class certification to proceed as a collective action.
  • Goldstein v. Unilever, Inc., 2004 WL 1098789 (Conn. Super. 2004)

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    Defendant's Motion to Dismiss denied
    Description:
    Decision permitted case to proceed for negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation and promissory estoppel where Employer withdrew offer of at-will employment after Employee had resigned from former job, but before starting new job.
  • Sancomb v. Mothers Work, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    Settlement
    Description:
    Negotiated settlement on behalf of 236 store managers, following U.S. Department of Labor investigation into Employer's overtime pay practices
  • Dr. Paul Desan, et al. v. Bridgeport Port Authority and The City of Bridge Port

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Outcome:
    (not available)
    Description:
    Represent ten regular riders of the Bridgeport and Port Jefferson Steamboat Ferry in a class action claiming that the ferry fares are unconstitutional. The Bridgeport Port Authority jacked up fees to cover the cost of litigating a previous lawsuit over fares, which the Port Authority lost. When the Bridgeport Port Authority was created in 1993, the ferry fee was 50 cents per passenger and $1 per car, according to the federal complaint. In 2003 the BPA doubled the charges, and passengers sued the agency, challenging the constitutionality of the fees hike. The Port Authority responded by adding another $1 surcharge in 2006 to help pay the costs of the suit, according to the most recent complaint. In July 2008, U.S. District Judge Christopher Droney ruled that the fares collected from April 2001 to March 2006 violated the Commerce and Tonnage Clauses of the Constitution and were excessive by about $8.7 million. The class seeks that money as damages, plus punitive damages and an injunction. Defendants include the City of Bridgeport, the BPA and all five of its commissioners.