Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Carl Schuster
Carl Schuster
Visitors: 134
1
Bar #71490(FL)     License for 62 years; Member in Good Standing
Fort Lauderdale FL

Are you Carl Schuster? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

07-1341  Torrech-Hernandez v. General Electric Co  (2008)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: Mar. 07, 2008 Citations: 519 F.3d 41
See Iverson, 452 F.3d at 98;, The gravamen of Torrech's constructive discharge claim is that the words and actions of his employer, beginning with Sommer's arrival in Puerto Rico, lead him to believe that he would soon be terminated from his position as plant manager of the Humacao facility.
95-1867  Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol-Myers  (1996)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: Sep. 05, 1996
Puerto Rico.conspiracy claims; 10/18/93: Appellants move to extend discovery.of Appellees.Appellants' untimely motion to compel document production.(collecting cases).of the company, at [BMSC's] expense; See Goldman, 985 F.2d at 1116.would affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.
06-1205  Velazquez-Fernandez v. NCE Food, Inc.  (2007)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: Jan. 26, 2007 Citations: 476 F.3d 6
476 F.3d 6, Nelson E. VEL ZQUEZ-FERN NDEZ and Jos R. Rivera-Rosado, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v.NCE FOODS, INC. and Metropolitan Food Services, Inc.; Vel zquez's overtime claims survived summary judgment and were subsequently resolved out of court by the parties.
97-1770  Dominguez v. Eli Lilly  (1998)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: Mar. 11, 1998
EDDIE DOMINGUEZ, ET AL.and Boudin, Circuit Judge.appellees.concerning whether appellants were constructively discharged.See Vega v. Kodak Caribbean, Ltd., 3 F.3d 476, 479 (1st Cir.ferret rule, D.P.R.and the court's reference to it.affidavit. We discern no factual issue in this record.
96-1885  Rivera Flores v. Bristol Myers  (1997)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: Apr. 25, 1997
Squibb Manufacturing Inc. (SMI) in Humacao, Puerto Rico.disability benefits;and employee in determining the provisions of the waiver; Rivera has not fairly met this evidence.claims for disability are released. Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 186 (1st Cir. nor did he file an affidavit under Fed.
05-2721  Velez v. Janssen Ortho LLC  (2006)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: Nov. 03, 2006
Act No. 115, P.R.discrimination claims under Title VII and Puerto Rico law.application in this case.4, In 1999, Velez sent two letters to Janssen requesting employment, in specific positions. See Brown, 163 F.3d at 710, ([T]he general rule .employment action element of a retaliation claim.
06-2501  Soto-Lebron v. Federal Express Corp.  (2008)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: Aug. 20, 2008 Citations: 538 F.3d 45
, When the plaintiffs sought to introduce the FDLE lab report into evidence during their case in chief, FedEx objected on the basis that there was nothing to link the report to Soto's package. A wrongfully terminated employee cannot recover emotional distress damages for the termination itself.
07-2723  Garcia v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.  (2008)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: Jul. 23, 2008
535 F.3d 23 (2008), Norys I. GARCíA; Vélez's criticisms repeated and were consistent with those made in García's final PIP progress report, such as that she had trouble working well with others, reacted negatively to feedback, and blamed others when problems arose.
95-1407  Virapen v. Eli Lilly, S.A.  (1995)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: Sep. 22, 1995
66 F.3d 307, NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.John VIRAPEN, et al., United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. It supportably found that Virapen did not establish a case of employment discrimination under the Law 100 test.
03-1032  Matias-Correa v. Pfizer, Inc.  (2003)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: Sep. 25, 2003 Citations: 345 F.3d 7
345 F.3d 7, Nancy MATIAS-CORREA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.PFIZER, INC.; This appeal followed., 17, Despite this language, Mat as alleges that the plan did not grant final discretionary authority to MCS because Pfizer has retained the authority to reverse MCS's decisions concerning the plan.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer