LITIGATION ACTIVITY/COURT DECISIONS

Black Boeing employee sues company after finding noose at desk, says 'my work life is degrading'
Black Boeing employee sues company after finding noose at desk, says 'my work life is degrading' originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
A black employee at Boeing who says that he was found a noose hanging near his desk, signs near his workspace saying "n-----" and urine covering his desk on separate occasions says that his work life remains "degrading" even after he complained to management, he told ABC News.
"The significance and historical symbolism of hanging a noose over an African American's head is telling them you're going to lynch them.  It's not only a symbol, it's a direct threat of violence," Anthony's lawyer, Donald Gist, told ABC News.
CONTRACT:  Former USC star says group failed to promote plans to enter motorsports
Circuit Court case No. 281666-V
Dream Turned Bad
Staley a South Carolina native and former Gamecocks star, played in the NFL for 10 seasons, including seven years with the Philadelphia Eagles...
"These athletes can make millions of dollars, but they are young and not experienced in the business world, and they can fall prey to these predatory types who seek to capitalize on their hand-earned money."
Donald Gist
Represented Staley
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Sarah DAWKINS Appellant, v. UNION HOSPITAL DISTRICT (a.k.a. Wallace Thomson Hospital), Respondent. 
Appellate Case No.2012-211938.
No. 27380.
Decided: April 09, 2014
John S. Nichols, of Bluestein Nichols Thompson & Delgado, LLC, and Donald Gist, of Gist Law Firm, P.A., both of Columbia, for appellant.  William U. Gunn and Joshua Tate Thompson, both of Holcombe Bomar, P.A., of Spartanburg, for respondent Sarah Dawkins (Appellant) appeals the trial court's decision granting Union Hospital District d/b/a Wallace Thomson Hospital's (the Hospital) motion to dismiss with prejudice and finding that Appellant was required to comply with the statutory requirements for filing a medical malpractice claim, specifically the Notice of Intent (NIO) and expert affidavit requirements.  We reverse.
Former running back from S.C. wins courtroom victory in contract dispute
Former Pittsburgh Steelers running back Duce Staley won a counterclaim in a contract dispute over his plans to found a drag-racing team.  Staley played football for USC and now hosts a sports talk radio show in Columbia.  
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Wilmot Shaw, Plaintiff v. Psychemedics Corporation Defendant.
Appellate Case No. 2017-002538
CERTIFIED QUESTION
ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Timothy M. Cain, United States District Judge
Opinion No. 27869
Heard December 12, 2018 -- Filed March 20, 2019
CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED
Donald Gist and Aaron Wallace, of Gist Law Firm, PA, of Columbia, for Plaintiff.
S. Michael Nail and Matthew K. Johnson, both of Greenville, and Michael Clarkson, of Boston, MA, all of Ogletree, Deakins, Nask, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., for Defendant.
An employee who is terminated for a positive drug test faces immediate consequences, namely the loss of the employee's income and livelihood.  Moreover, many employment applications inquire about an applicant's prior work history, including any instance of termination  As a result, the positive drug test and subsequent termination may hinder the employee as he or she seeks new employment.  See Duncan v. Afton, Inc., 991 P.2d 739, 745 (Wyo. 1999) ("{T}he likely effect of a false positive result is significant and devastating; employment will likely be terminated and future prospects of employment adversely impacted.").
CERTIFIED QUESTION ANSWERED.
KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, J.J., concur.
CHIEF JUSTICE BEATTY:  We certified the following question from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina:
Under South Carolina law, does a drug testing laboratory that has a contract with an employer to conduct and evaluate drug tests owe a duty of care to the employees who are subject to the testing so as to give rise to a cause of action for negligence for failure to properly and accurately perform the test and report the results?
For reasons that will be discussed, we answer this question in the affirmative.

© 2019 by Gist Law Firm, PA.

  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon