Can my employer fire me for no reason? an “at-will” employment state. This means that in most cases, your employer can fire you at any time for any reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. So your employer can fire you for complaining about your boss’s lack of Can my employer retaliate against me? Generally, yes. Most retaliation is not illegal. You should contact Heins & Minko Employment Attorneys to find out if you case has merit. Are there exceptions to employment at-will? employment contract, it may contain language that says your employer can only fire you “for cause” (i.e., a good reason). Additionally, if your employer made an oral or written statement (including pre-employment statements) that tends to limit its ... Am I eligible for unemployment if my employer fired me for a bad reason or no reason? Yes. Even if your situation does not fall into one of the exceptions of employment at will listed here, you may still be eligible for unemployment benefits if your employer did not terminate you for misconduct. What is illegal discrimination? Discrimination is treating someone differently based on his/her membership in a “protected class.” Protected classes include race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, and age. ... What is illegal harassment? (see the preceding paragraph for a list of protected classes) that creates a hostile environment or adversely affects the individual’s employment. Most harassment claims are for sexual harassment. While morally wrong, harassment is not legally wrong unless the reason you are ... Can I take medical or parental leave? State and federal laws require some employers to provide eligible employees with leave for the birth, adoption, or foster care of a child, and to care for a serious health condition of the employee or his/her close relative. Eligible employees may sue for damages if their employer denies or ... Is my employer required to accommodate my disability? Employers must reasonably accommodate a qualified employee’s disability, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer. Act 10 continues to cause controversy in Wisconsin the law unconstitutional in Sept. 2012 and a stay was put on enforcing Prison guard union vote allowed by state On behalf of Heins Law Office LLC posted in Employment Disputes on Thursday, May 30, 2013. President Obama praises Gap for raising wages behalf of Heins & Minko posted in Employment Disputes on Friday, February 28, 2014. Wisconsin residents may be interested in recent comments by President Obama on a newly announced plan by Gap Inc. to raise its minimum wage. On Feb. 19, President Obama praised the ... Wisconsin equal rights claim results in settlement attorney who has

1. Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2600339 (E.D.Wis.)
(Cite as: 2009 WL 2600339 (E.D.Wis.))
Only the http://www.heinslawoffice.com citation is currently available.
This decision was reviewed by http://heinslawoffice.com editorial staff and not assigned editorial enhancements.
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.
Dianne M. GNATZIG, Plaintiff,
v.
MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., Defend-
ant.
No. 08–CV–246. Aug. 21, 2009.
Janet L. Heins, Martin C. Kuhn, Heins Law Office LLC, Mequon, WI, for Plaintiff.
Bruce A. Olson, Davis & Kuelthau SC, Green Bay, WI, for Defendant.
ORDER
J.P. STADTMUELLER, District Judge.
*1 On July 2, 2009, Plaintiff Dianne Gnatzig (“Gnatzig”) filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs arising from this court's order compelling defendant Medco Health Solutions, Inc. (“Medco”) to produce discovery. Gnatzig originally filed a motion to compel discovery on December 2, 2008, seeking two items: 1) an unredacted calendar maintained by Gnatzig's manager during her employment at Medco; and 2) documents related to a harassment complaint filed against Gnatzig. The court held a hearing on the motion to compel on December 22, 2008. At the hearing, the court denied Gnatzig's motion to compel the complaint materials. However, the court instructed Medco to submit an unredacted calendar for the court's review. The court then issued an order on February 6, 2009, compelling Medco to disclose eleven specific, relevant calendar entries to Gnatzig. Four months later, the court granted summary judgment to Medco.
Page 1
Gnatzig now seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs based on the court's partial grant of her motion to compel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The rule directs a court granting a motion for disclosure of discovery to award the moving party “reasonable expenses,” including attorneys' fees, incurred in making the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A). However, the court need not order such payment if the opposing party's nondisclosure or objection was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award unjust. Id. Based on this rule, Gnatzig moves for fees and costs in the amount of $1,485.67.
The court will not award Gnatzig attorneys' fees or costs. After reviewing the subject calendar, the court compelled the disclosure of only eleven brief entries comprising isolated phrases, such as “Staff Meeting” or “HR Issues Discussion.” (See February 6, 2009 Order, Docket # 37). The court declined to compel disclosure of any of the remaining calendar entries due to a lack of relevance. Therefore, the court strictly limited its grant of Gnatzig's motion to compel the redacted calendar entries and denied her motion to compel the harassment complaint materials in its entirety. Rule 37 provides that when a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, the court may apportion the reasonable expenses. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(C). The court declined to award attorneys' fees and costs to Medco after denying Gnatzig's motion to compel the harassment complaint materials at the December 22, 2008 hearing. (See Hearing Minutes, Docket # 24). The court similarly declines to grant attorneys' fees and costs to Gnatzig. Neither party prevailed fully on the motion to compel and it is appropriate that each party bears its own costs incurred in bringing and defending against the motion. Further, the court ultimately awarded summary judgment to Medco and dismissed Gnatzig's action. Thus, the court finds that an award of costs and attorneys' fees is unwarranted and will deny the motion.
© Heins Employment Law Offices
Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2600339 (E.D.Wis.)

2. (Cite as: 2009 WL 2600339 (E.D.Wis.))
*2 Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Gnatzig's motion for attorneys' fees (Docket # 44) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
E.D.Wis.,2009.
Gnatzig v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 2600339
(E.D.Wis.)
END OF DOCUMENT
© Heins Employment Law Offices