“While Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, she complained to her supervisors that she should be paid as an employee, rather than an independent contractor, because she was treated as an employee. (Id. ¶ 26.) Subsequently, Defendants offered to extend the contracts of every other coordinating producer besides Plaintiff who had worked on the fifth season…

“The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff successfully made a prima facie case, and that Defendants articulated a non-discriminatory reason for their failure to extend Plaintiff’s contract by stating she was unhappy producing Shipping Wars, shifting the burden back to Plaintiff. (Dkt. # 52 at 5.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff raised a genuine issue…

Plaintiffs allege that Rite–Way was an enterprise covered by the FLSA because (1) its employees handled materials such as “mops, brooms, towels, soap, chemicals, vacuum cleaners, and other cleaning materials, supplies, and equipment” that had moved in interstate commerce, and (2) its annual gross volume of sales exceeded $500,000.

Therefore, as held persuasively by the…

Plaintiff contends that she “was succeeded by one or more of three new male MEs and so was replaced by someone outside her protected class.” There is evidence that Defendant had “three temporary or agency MEs” but didn’t know if they were actually hired and was not sure of their race. Defendant argues that evidence…

Plaintiff’s earnings prior to her employment with Defendant are not relevant to this cause of action. Therefore, the temporal scope of the financial information relevant to Plaintiff’s case is limited to the time period during and after her employment with Defendant. Because Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in June of 2014, only Plaintiff’s earnings (and…

Despite the fact that the employer posted an arbitration agreement with a 30 day opt out clause the Court held “that is a gamble every employer takes any time it foregoes an employee signature and instead hangs its hat on a fact finder’s determination of whether it met Halliburton ‘s notice requirements.” The Court further…

Even if the attorney-client or work-product privileges were to apply, Herzing waived the privileges by asserting the Faragher-Ellerth defense. When a Title VII defendant affirmatively invokes a Faragher-Ellerth defense that is premised at least in part on an internal investigation, the defendant waives the attorney-client privilege and work- product doctrine for all documents created as…

It is clear that, pursuant to Herzing’s policy, the investigation would have been conducted regardless of whether litigation ensued. As a result, the investigation was conducted in the ordinary course of business.  Accordingly, the work-product privilege does not apply to Baiocchi’s notes. Ambrose-Frazier v. Herzing Inc, No. 15-1324, 2016 WL 890406 at *4 (E.D.…