Reversal of Judgment for Plaintiff Under Title VII, and Criminal and Insurance Matters

By FindLaw Staff on May 13, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In US v. Gomez-Castro, No. 09-12557, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's aggravated identity theft conviction is affirmed where the government, holding that the government, in its prosecution of an offender for aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. section 1028A(a)(1), could rely on circumstantial evidence about the offender's misuse of the victim's identity to satisfy its burden of proving that the offender knew the identity belonged to a real person.

Shaw v. Nat'l. Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 09-14669, concerned a challenge to defendant-insurer's denial to plaintiff of "permanent total disability" benefits under an insurance policy.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, on the ground that plaintiff could not be "permanently totally disabled" without suffering one of the injuries listed in a certain paragraph of the policy, and plaintiff did not suffer such an injury.

Howard v. Walgreen Co., No. 09-11823, involved an action alleging retaliation claims under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act.  The court of appeals reversed judgment for plaintiff, holding that, even if plaintiff subjectively believed that his supervisor unlawfully discriminated against him when he left a message stating that plaintiff's job was in jeopardy, his belief could not have been objectively reasonable, because the supervisor's warning was not an adverse employment action.

Related Resources

Copied to clipboard