Where a jury found that a defendant employer violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act by retaliating against an employee after he suffered a workplace injury, that verdict should not be overturned despite the employer’s argument that (1) there is insufficient evidence to establish that the employee engaged in protected conduct, (2) the verdict resulted from prejudicial errors in the jury instructions, and (3) the exclusion of certain evidence relating to the employee’s arrest record was prejudicial.
“On June 21, 2022, a jury found that Defendants Tara Construction, Inc. (‘Tara’), and Pedro Pirez (‘Pirez’) violated Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the ‘OSH Act’), 29 U.S.C. §660(c), when they retaliated against their employee, Martin Paz (‘Paz’) after he suffered a workplace injury. … Defendants now seek to overturn this verdict, renewing their motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and, in the alternative, moving for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. … Plaintiff Martin J. Walsh, the Secretary of Labor for the United States Department of Labor (the ‘Secretary’), opposes such action. … For the following reasons, Defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, motion for a new trial [Dkt. 285] is denied. …
“Defendants present three reasons for overturning the jury’s verdict. First, Defendants argue that there is insufficient...
The court found the relator did not allege specific reimbursement requests or facts linking challenged promotional statements to government payments. A Maryland federal district court dismissed a ...