|
Attorneys Fees:
Hubis
v. Caplan, Brief Amicus Curiae Filed on
Behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association of New
Jersey - argument: New
Jersey Court Rule 1:21-7 neither governs nor fixes the maximum
permissible contingent attorneys' fees and costs that can be
obtained in actions alleging violations of the NJLAD, Title VII
or other statutory civil rights causes of action.
Disparate pay:
Cardenas v. Massey,
(3rd Cir.) Harassment:
Ethnic:
Cardenas v. Massey,
(3rd Cir.)
Individual Liability:
A. Defendant's Argument:
Pitney,
Hardin, Kipp & Szuch. Same briefing submitted in Rader
v. UPS, Docket No. MID-L-05440-98 (filed May 11, 2001 -
Michael Bissinger) and in Bonaventure v. AT&T, Docket
No. MID-L-10972-95 (filed March 17, 2000 - Greg Parliman and
Wendy Lario Johnson)
B. Plaintiff's Argument:
Fredric
Gross, Esq. Bonaventure v. AT&T, Docket No.
MID-L-10972-95 (filed April 10, 2000).
Cardenas v. Massey,
(3rd Cir.) Redaction of personnel records:
Cardenas v. Massey,
(3rd Cir.) Section 1981
Cardenas v. Massey,
(3rd Cir.) Section 1983:
Political Affiliation:
Fredric Gross, Esq., Fox v. Township of
Jackson - Complaint, Brief,
TRO
Statute of Limitations:
Continuing Violation Theory:
Cardenas v. Massey,
(3rd Cir.) Summary Judgment:
Cardenas v. Massey,
(3rd Cir.) Briefs:
- Cardenas
v. Massey, (3rd Cir.)
(____kb) Docket No. 5225 submitted October 30, 2000. Brief of
Plaintiff-Appellant. Fredric Gross on the Brief, Susan
Babb and Noel Crowley of Counsel. Issues presented:
1. Should plaintiff have been granted
summary judgment on disparate pay claims which were held to be
time barred rather than continuing violations?
2. Did the district court err in analyzing various forms of
disparate treatment and reprisal in isolation from one another
and from overtly ethnic harassment?
3. Did the district court's summary judgment rulings resolve
factual disputes against the non-moving party?
4. Did
the district court err in dismissing 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") claims
against the individual defendants?
5. Does a district court have authority under Title VII,
§ 1981 and/or the LAD to order that the head of a State
agency remove the taint of unlawful discrimination from a
plaintiff's State personnel records?
|
