Small Business Administration, 695 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Stevinson Chevrolet, 74 F.3d 980, 986 (l0th Cir. Tulane University Medical School (Civil Action No.īerry v. Tulane University Medical School, 962 F.Supp. 23:291 Is Not a Safe Harbor For TulaneĪlford v. Tulane Did Not Qualify for the QualifiedĬ. The district court erred in granting summaryī. Tulane Retaliated Against Bernofsky by DenyingĦ. His Equipment, Supplies, and Research Materialsį. Tulane Retaliated Against Bernofsky by Seizing Tulane Subverted an Important Opportunity forĮ. Tulane's Failure to Respond to Inquiries From aĭ. Tulane's Method of Termination was DefamatoryĬ. Evidence of a pattern of retaliation by Tulane and aī. Judgment on the retaliation claim by holding that a negative reference letter is not an adverse employmentĪction and by not viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Bernofskyĥ. The district court erred in granting summary Remuneration was paid to the judge by the defendantĤ. To recuse itself after the district court judge accepted a teaching assignment in Greece, for which The district court abused its discretion in refusing Summary judgment and abuse of discretion for review of failure to recuseĢ.
Proper standard of review is de novo for review of STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES SUBMITTED FORġ. COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSITION BELOW STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEWĢ. This case contains interesting issues of recusal.Ĭ. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Page numbers refer to original document pages and here are hyperlinked to the appropriate reference.)į. Negative reference letter is an adverse employment action. Eastman Kodak Company to hold that a negative reference letter The district court has expanded the holding of Mattern Letter written concerning an ex-employee is an adverse employmentĪction. Issue in the retaliation claim is whether a negative reference Oral argument would be helpful in this case because the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund This Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.Ĩ. These representations are made in order that the Judges of The undersigned counsel of record certifies that theįollowing listed persons have an interest in the outcome of thisĬase. 98-1792 c/w 98-2102, The Honorable Ginger Berrigan, Judge, Presiding _ ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND Defendant - Appellee _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil Action No. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ 00-30704 _ DR.
0 kommentar(er)
