Retaliation Cases

A preschool teacher terminated from her employment at a church preschool brought multiple claims against the church, the school, the director of the school, and a church committee. After the teacher presented her evidence to a jury, the court granted motions for a directed verdict as to all defendants except the church and on all claims except common law retaliatory discharge and promissory estoppel. The teacher claimed that the director terminated her employment in retaliation for her complaints about safety issues at the school and that she relied on a promise by the chair of a church committee that a probation report would be removed from her personnel file. The jury found in favor of the church on both counts, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the church. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

Arbitration agreement race discrimination retaliation motion to stay litigation pending arbitration procedurally unconscionable. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting employer's motion to stay litigation pending arbitration of plaintiff's race discrimination and retaliation claims where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his claims were not subject to arbitration and that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable.

Where the Industrial Commission had evidence to support its view that the employee was not fired for assaulting his employer, the court will not overturn that credibility assessment. The Commission did not abuse its discretion in awarding temporary total disability after finding that the employer did not prove that the injured worker voluntarily had abandoned his employment. Objections to Magistrate's decision overruled writ of mandamus denied.

The plaintiff, Michael Crenshaw, appealed from a January 7, 2019 judgment entered in the Providence County Superior Court in favor of the defendants, the State of Rhode Island and Lieutenant Scott Raynes (State Defendants) and the Community College of Rhode Island, the Council on Postsecondary Education, and Captain Timothy Poulin (CCRI Defendants), pursuant to a grant of both the State Defendants' motion to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure and the CCRI Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings based on Rule 12(c). The plaintiff also appealed from a December 21, 2018 order denying his motion to amend his complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the hearing justice erred in dismissing his claim under G.L. 1956 § 28-50-3 of the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act (the Act) because, in the plaintiff's view, the statute does not limit protection to reports of the particular employer relative to which the Act's protection is sought. The plaintiff also argued that the hearing justice erred in denying his motion to amend his complaint as to the allegations supporting his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis that it was barred by the statute of limitations and, therefore, futile. The Supreme Court held that the hearing justice correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to state a valid claim under the Act because the activity occurred while Mr. Crenshaw was not employed by the defendants and involved violations of law allegedly committed by a previous employer—an entity that had no nexus with CCRI. The Court also held that the hearing justice did not abuse her discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint as futile because his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment and the order of the Superior Court.

Voluntary satisfaction of judgment garnishment stay of execution age discrimination R.C. 4112.02(A) Age Discrimination in Employment Act 29 U.S.C. 623 motion for directed verdict Civ.R. 50(A)(4) failure to preserve issue for appeal plain error failure to object to jury instructions inconsistent jury verdicts back pay and front pay damages punitive damages Civ.R. 61. Appeal was not moot based on appellant's partial voluntary satisfaction of judgment through garnishment. Appellant failed to preserve the issue of trial court's denial of motion for directed verdict for appeal where it did not renew the motion at close of all evidence. Appellant forfeited all but plain error regarding improper jury instructions and inconsistent verdicts where it failed to raise issues below. Appellant failed to demonstrate plain error. Trial court did not improperly permit plaintiff to reference indictment of a third-party during cross-examination of a defendant. Trial court promptly sustained objection once defendants objected and gave appropriate instruction to the jury regarding the issue. Appellant did not demonstrate that trial court abused its discretion in allowing plaintiff to use Ohio Department of Job and Family Services document during his cross-examination of a defendant or that it was materially prejudiced thereby.