Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Employment Decisions by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s Nominee to US Supreme Court

On Tuesday, May 26, 2009, President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor presently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. She was appointed to the Second Circuit by President Clinton in 1997 and prior to that she was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush in 1992.

The following is a list of employment cases by Judge Sotomayor, that was posted on the blog entitled Jottings by an Employer’s Lawyer (thank you Michael Fox):

1. Singh v. City of New York, 524 F.3d 361 (2nd Cir. 4/29/08) - An FLSA case where the Court affirmed a district court opinion denying a claim for commuting time. There is a discussion of de minimis time. Relying on 2nd Circuit precedent that requires three factors to be considered: "(1) the practical administrative difficulty of recording additional time; (2) the size of the claim in the aggregate; and (3) whether the claimants performed the work on a regular basis." Although it is not always a winner for the employer, this time it was.

2. Rolon v. Henneman, 517 F.3d 140 (2nd Cir. 2/25/08). Affirmed a finding that a police chief had absolute immunity for his testimony in a disciplinary proceeding even if it was perjury.

3. Moore v. Consolidated Edison Co., 409 F. 3d 506 (6/2/05) - Affirmed denial of a temporary injunction in a case brought by a terminated employee.

4. Clarett v. National Football League, 369 F.3d 124 (2nd Cir. 5/24/04). Reversed a district court holding that would have allowed Ohio State football player Maurice Clarett to enter the NFL draft early.

5. Williams v. R.H. Donnelley Corp., 368 F.3d 123 (2nd Cir 2004). Affirmed district court summary judgment in discrimination case.

6. EEOC v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 331 F.3d 69 (2nd Cir. 2/5/03). Dissented to the upholding of a summary judgment for a defendant in an ADA perceived as case.

7. Higgins v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 318 F.3d 422 (2nd Cir. 1/28/03). Concurred in upholding an FELA summary judgment motion for the defendant employer. She would have applied a different test from the majority, but reached the same result.

8. Brown v. Parkchester South Condominiums, 287 F.3d 58 (4/12/02). Reversed a district court dismissal of a discrimination claim and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether or not the filing deadline should be equitably tolled.

9. Martens v. Thomann, 273 F.3d 159 (2nd Cir. 11/20/01). Appeal in a class action case sorting out a number of procedural issues, including a motion to reassign the case to a different district judge which was denied.

10. Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64 (2nd Cir. 9/26/01). Upheld summary judgment ruling against a government employee's claim that his privacy rights were violated during a search of his computer.

11. Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2nd Cir. 3/19/01). Reversed a trial court's grant of a judgment as a matter of law in a discrimination case.

12. White v. White Rose Food, 237 F.3d 174 (2nd Cir. 1/10/01). Reversed a trial court's ruling against an employer after a bench trial in a §301 case.

13. Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 204 F.3d 326 (1/28/00). Reversed trial court's summary judgment for employer in ADA case.

14. Cruz v. Coach Stores, 202 F.3d 560 (1/20/00). Reversed summary judgment for employer on harassment claim, but affirmed summary judgment for discrimination and retaliation claims.

15. Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. , 199 F.3d 642 (2nd Cir. 12/2/99). Dissented from opinion affirming a trial court's appointment of a guardian ad litem and approving settlement of case. Would have found trial court did not give due process before appointing guardian ad litem.

16. Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital, 196 F.3d 89 (11/2/99). Affirmed summary judgment for employer on race and age claims, but reversed jury verdict in favor of employer on ADA claim because court improperly charged jury on that issue.