1,947 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1904–2026)
A hostile work environment claim requires showing that unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic was severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working environment. Courts consider the frequency, severity, and nature of the conduct, as well as whether it unreasonably interfered with the employee's work performance. Both the subjective experience and an objective standard are evaluated.
Employers most frequently appearing in hostile work environment rulings.
Public employees' collective bargaining - Ohio public employer commits unfair labor practice in violation of R.C. 4117.11(A)(5) when it unilaterally terminates bargaining with an incumbent union, when .
<p>Case 84. — ACTION BY ALBERT C. HATHAWAY’S EXECUTRIX AGAINST LOUISVILLE, H. & St. L. R. CO. FOR CAUSING THE DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S INTESTATE.</p> <p>Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Common Pleas Branch., Second Division.</p> <p>Ti-iomas R. Gordon Judge.</p> <p>Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.</p> <p>POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.</p> <p>1. When, by deducting one rough estimate of a distance from another rough estimate of a distance between a running train and a stationary object, the remainder is a distance of thirty feet, which at the rate of- speed of the train, would be traversed in one and one-half seconds, and on this alone the plaintiff relies to prov-e a “negligent delay” in giving a signal to- stop the train, the court should have peremptorily instructed the jury to find for the defendant, as there is no proof of any facts from which negligence could be inferred. The foundation for the inference being ’speculation and guesses. (Wintuski’s Adm’r v. L. & N., 14 Ky. Law Rep., 580; Hughes’ Adm’r v. Cincinnati, &c., R. Co., 91 Ky., 526; Louisville Gas Co. v. Kaufman, 106 Ky., 131; L. & N. v. W(athen, 22 Ky. Law Rep., 85.)</p> <p>2. When all the witnesses testify that the nature of an object seen lying beside t.he track was never suspected to be a person until it was too late to stop the train, the court should not -submit the case to- the jury on the theory that the jury might conclude the- real character of the object was discovered sooner than any witness said it was or could have been discovered, (Earley’s Adm’r v. L., H. & St. L., 24 Ky. Law Rep., 1808; Goodman’s- Adm’r v. L. & N., 25 Ky. Law Rep., 1086.)</p> <p>1. The main and practically the only contention of the counsel for appellant is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. There is no question of law involved. Under our system the jury is the absolute and unqualified- trier of the facts of a jury case. Its province is as complete and unassailable as that of the court to direct it as to the
<p>Case 77 — Action bt Albert Jahn’s Admr. against William H. McKnight & Co. for Causing the Death of Plaintiff’s Intestate.</p> <p>APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.</p> <p>Judgment foe Defendants and Plaintiff Appeals.</p> <p>POINTS.</p> <p>1. The team owner was not an independent contractor.</p> <p>2. Whatever may have been the relation between the appellee and the team owner, the relation between appellee and the team driver was such as to render appellee liable for the team driver’s negligence,</p> <p>3. In any event, the lower court erred in giving a peremptory instruction to find for appellee.</p> <p>AUTHORITIES.</p> <p>Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., vol. 16, pp. 187, 190, 191; Jenson v. Barbour, 15 Mont., 582; Montgomery Gas Light Co. v. Montgomery & E. Ry. Co., 86 Ala., 372; Campbell v. Lunsford, 83 Ala., 512; Linehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass., 123; Thompson on Negligence, vol. 1, p. 579; Alyell v. Tyrer, El. Bl., 906; Blake v. Thirst, 2d H. & C., 20; Texas, &c. R. R. Co. v. June-man, 71 Fed. Rep., 939; Tiffin v. McCormick, 34 Ohio St., 638; Waters v. Pioneer Fuel Co., 52 Minn., 474; Phila W. & B. Ry. Co. v. Hahn, 12 Atl., 479; Thompson on Negligence, vol. 1, sec. 579, p. 537; Kimball, v. Cushman, 103 Mass., 194; Adams Express Co. v. S'chofield, 23 Ky. Law Rep., 1120; Southern Express Co. v. Brown, 67 Miss., 260; Vary v. Ry. Co., 42 la., 246; Wichtrecht v. Fasnacht, 17 La. Ann., 166; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Tow, &e., 23 Ky. Law Rep., 408; Rait v. New Eng. Fur. &c., 66 Minn., 76; Barg Bousfield, 65 Minn., 355; Sullivan v. Dunham, 35 N. Y. App. Div., 342; Hart v. Ryan, 6 .N. Y. Supp., 921; Brophy v. Bartlett, 108 N. Y., 632.</p> <p>POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.</p> <p>1. Appellees are merchants, having no delivery wagons; they contracted with Granville' Hooper to furnish them a horse, wagon and driver to carry and deliver as much as could be done with one team, for a stipulated price per week. By the contract Granville Hooper selected the horse
Explore rulings by type of employment law claim.
Check which employment laws may protect you — free, private, and no sign-up required.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The classification of claim types is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.