In Osterhout v Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, the giant retailer was denied its motion to dismiss an employee’s age, gender and disability discrimination and FMLA interference and retaliation claims based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel despite her failure to disclose those claims in bankruptcy proceedings. [read post]

For example, in Muhammad v Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, a federal court sua sponte sanctioned an employee’s attorney who tried to avoid summary judgment by “disingenuously” arguing that an unpleaded gender bias claim had merit and could be pursued simply because the employee checked the Title VII box on his form complaint (WDNY 2012). [read post]

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP,  2021 U.S. [read post]