6,641 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1869–2026)
Retaliation occurs when an employer takes adverse action against an employee for engaging in legally protected activity, such as filing a discrimination complaint, reporting safety violations, or participating in an investigation. Retaliation is the most commonly filed charge with the EEOC. These cases examine whether a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
Employers most frequently appearing in retaliation rulings.
North Carolina Human Resources Act N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 126-35(a) Just cause to dismiss career State employee Specificity of allegations in employee dismissal letter
The Appellant, Dinnie Merel Robertson, was convicted in the Lawrence County Circuit Court in case number 31906 of two counts of felony vandalism, carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment. Subsequently, he pled guilty in the Lawrence County Circuit Court in case number 33049 to two counts of retaliation for past action. The Appellant received an effective four-year sentence in case number 31906 and an effective two-year sentence in case number 33049 to be served consecutively as ten months in confinement followed by supervised probation. The Appellant then was convicted in the Lawrence County Circuit Court in case number 33414 of selling one-half gram or more of methamphetamine and selling Clonazepam and received an effective ten-year sentence to be served in confinement and consecutively to the effective six-year sentence. The trial court also revoked the Appellant's probation in case numbers 31906 and 33049 and ordered that he serve his sentences in those cases in confinement. In this consolidated appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions in case number 33414, that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve his effective ten-year sentence in that case consecutively to his prior sentences, and that the trial court erred by denying his request for probation. He also contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation in case numbers 31906 and 33049 and ordering that he serve those sentences in confinement. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the case for correction of the judgments.
summary judgment – gender discrimination – legitimate business reason – pretext – retaliation – judgment based on arguments not asserted
Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of employer on a former employee's claim that he was terminated, in violation of R.C. 4123.90, in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim and complaint where the former employee failed to prove the employer's articulated reasons for terminating him were a mere pretext for the adverse action. Judgment affirmed.
CIVIL - disability discrimination retaliatory discharge collateral estoppel res judicata grievance process used collective bargaining agreement statutory claims not barred separate not actually or necessarily litigated separate remedies are not jointly exhaustive summary judgment reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis for termination no evidence of pretext no genuine issue of material fact.
Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination case on the basis of racial discrimination as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliation against The Ohio State University. Plaintiff failed to file within the two year statute of limitation and the longer federal time period in this case is not applicable. Judgment affirmed.
Showing 3,051–3,100 of 6,641 rulings · Page 62 of 133
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.