In Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-10507), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss in this “take-home” asbestos exposure case. The Court determined that Plaintiff’s negligence claim failed because Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care. The Court’s decision fails to provide any guidance about how this issue will be settled in Illinois in the future. [Read more…] about U.S. District Court Dismisses Take-Home Asbestos Claim
Archives for March 2016
Julie Ramson recently had her article, “The Difference between a Deposition and Trial Testimony”, published in the PSIC Physician Connection Newsletter. To read a PDF version of the article, clink on this link:
The Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Illinois released an important message this week regarding a new telephone scam. The new scam, called “Caller ID Spoofing”, involves a scammer using an attorney’s phone number to call her or his clients asking for additional payments for creditors and directing the client to call a toll-free number to make the payments. Because this scam will list an attorney’s legitimate office number on caller ID, it may be difficult or impossible for a client to not be victimized. It is imperative that clients receive information about the scam, understand the payment process for creditors in bankruptcies. It also is necessary for attorneys to notify their clients about the spoofing scam. If you believe you have been victimized by Caller ID Spoofing, you should file a complaint with the FBI at the Internet Crime Complaint Center www.ic3.gov.
In Jaburek v. Foxx, No. 15-2165, January 13, 2016, 7th Circuit, the employee filed a Title VII and Equal Pay Act claim alleging that her employer failed to promote her to the Program Analyst position that she was actually performing and for which she was receiving less pay than her male co-workers. The employee had advised her supervisor that her expanded job duties included the Program Analyst position. However, the employee failed to show that she ever formally applied for the Program Analyst position, or that comparable co-workers received the position instead of her. Further, the employee failed to establish an Equal Pay Act claim because none of the three comparable co-workers she named were in the same geographic office as the employee, and the employee failed to provide descriptions of their job duties.
The employee also failed to state a retaliation claim after her supervisor removed her Program Analyst duties. This was because the employee’s only “protest”over the removal was a request for a desk audit of her job. This was not an act of opposition to any discrimination sufficient to support a retaliation claim.