Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P.

Website Links

Description

CASE RESULT: ANN SMITH and ALLISON SERAFIN (Raleigh) recently obtained Summary Judgment in the Eastern District of North Carolina in favor of a municipality which had been sued by a former employee alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race. Specifically, the African-American employee claimed that he was disciplined more severely than his white counter-parts. The Court granted Summary Judgment, finding that the employee had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his discriminatory discipline claim and ruled that the employee failed to present sufficient evidence to show that other employees, who were not African-American, engaged in similar misconduct and were subjected to more lenient discipline. CASE RESULT: ANN SMITH and ALLISON SERAFIN (Raleigh) recently won a substantial victory both in the Motion to Dismiss made in the preliminary stage of litigation and, later again, at summary judgment representing a local municipality in a claim brought by a former employee in the Eastern District of North Carolina who was a female firefighter alleging gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Plaintiff claimed that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender because the male firefighters did not want to work with her. She also claimed that there was a hostile work environment because of profane language the male firefighters "used amongst themselves." The employer's Motion to Dismiss was granted as to both of these claims. Plaintiff was allowed to proceed to discovery on her claims of gender discrimination alleging that she was treated differently than the males because 1) her station assignment was undesirable; 2) she missed training opportunities; and 3) she was not provided with full gear prior to her first day of work. The Court granted Summary Judgment as to all of these claims. Plaintiff had also alleged a Title VII retaliation claim, but this claim was dismissed at the Summary Judgment stage as well. PRESS RELEASE: Richard T. Boyette Named President of the National Foundation for Judicial Excellence (NFJE) ARTICLE: Clocking in on Return to Work Issues with Injured Employees, July 2009 by Jason E. Toups. ARTICLE: The Effect of the ADA Amendment on the "Regarded As" Analysis, May 2009 by Allison Serafin. ARTICLE: How Tinkerbell's tryst and other tales from Facebook can affect you, May 2009 by Allison Serafin. CASE RESULT: HOLLAND L. BARKSDALE (Charlotte) successfully defended a claim where Plaintiff alleged that she sustained a back injury while working in the warehouse for her employer. Defendants presented evidence from several witnesses that Plaintiff had never reported an injury, hadn't missed work until a few months later, no investigation of an injury could be conducted by Defendant-Employer due to her delay and that no one was even aware of Plaintiff's claim for 6 months. Further, defense evidence showed that Plaintiff had not even reported a work-related event to any of her medical providers and stated at the hearing that she thought her back pain was related to a kidney problem (even though she had been seen by a chiropractor for months). Deputy Commissioner Harris bifurcated the hearing and found that Plaintiff's claim was barred by N.C.G.S. 97-22 due to a lack of reasonable excuse for delaying reporting her claim. Due to this determination, Defendants didn't have to go through the expense of depositions and the claim was denied outright by both Deputy Commissioner Harris and the Full Commission. ARTICLE: Performance Evaluations Are Basic to Employer Protection, April 2009 by Frank J. Albetta. ARTICLE: Debt Collecting...Leave It To The Experts, April 2009 by Katherine C. Wagner. ARTICLE: 2008 Changes to Commission Procedures and Forms, N.C. Bar Association's The Course and Scope, February 2009 edition, by Amy Pfeiffer. CASE RESULT: HOLLAND L. BARKSDALE (Charlotte) successfully defended a claim where Plaintiff alleged that she sustained an injury to her back and knee as a result of two falls while working for Defendant-Employer as a laborer. Defendants presented evidence that she was not credible in her report of injury to her supervisor as well as her physician. Further, she had previously attempted to pass a drug screen using false pretenses and witnesses testified for Defendants regarding this event. She also tested positive for drugs following the accident and while the claim was not denied for this reason, the positive drug test result was the reason that her light duty work restrictions could not be accommodated- she was terminated pursuant to company policy. Plaintiff's counsel argued that the drug test was not valid and was truly the sole reason for the denial of the claim but Defendants were able to prove that the drug test was valid through testimony of the director of the drug testing facility. Deputy Commissioner Stanback denied Plaintiff's claim for benefits and the Full Commission affirmed this determination. PRESS RELEASE: Patricia L. Holland Appointed to the North Carolina Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism PRESS RELEASE: Eleven Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog Attorneys Selected for 2009 North Carolina Super Lawyers

Fact sheet

Company contacts

Products & services

Similar companies nearby