David Lichtenstein's Legal Cases (4)

Employment and labor

Stone v. Dep't of Aviation, 453 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2006)

Jan 01, 2006

OUTCOME: Defendant's counterclaim under the Americans with Disabilities Act withstood a motion for summary judgment, reversing ruing by the District Court

Established important exception to claim-splitting doctrine: where an otherwise compulsory counterclaim for employment discrimination has not ripened as of the time a responsive pleading is due because ... not notice of right to sue has been issued by a fair employment practices agency, the counterclaim is not foreclosed by the doctrine of res judicata.

Employment and labor

Daniels v. Caleel+ Hayden, L.L.C., 72 P.3d 466 (Colo.App. 2003)

Jan 01, 2003

OUTCOME: Reversed summary judgment in favor of employer and remanded case for trial.

Established fact-intensive nature of employer's claim that employee was in administrative white-collar exemption under Fair Labor Standards Act (Federal overtime law).

Employment and labor

Roberts v. Roadway Express, Inc., 149 F.3d 1098 (10th Cir. 1998)

Jan 01, 1998

OUTCOME: Jury verdict for plaintiff finding employer retaliated for complaint of racial harassment, and attorney fee award, upheld on appeal

Evidence held sufficient to support jury verdict.

Employment and labor

Evenson v. Colorado Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 879 P.2d 402 (1993)

Jan 01, 1993

OUTCOME: New trial ordered because jury's finding for employer was based on erroneous instructions and employment manual claim was erroneously dismissed by court

A landmark case on at-will employment, employee manuals, constructive termination of employment, and retroactive application of a US Supreme Court decision. Held that (1) even if an employment manual ... includes a disclaimer asserting that employment is "at-will," where management manifests an intent to be bound by progressive discipline procedures described in the manual, a jury or judge may find the employer is bound by those procedures; (1) an employee who claims that an offer of early retirement constitutes age discrimination by constructive discharge can meet this burden by demonstrating that the employee's "choices" make the employee worse off, and that, if the employee decides to stay, the employer will treat the employee less favorably because of age, and

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained