Vandevender v. Sheetz: “The Pickle Jar Myth”

  • However, with regard to the retaliation claim, the court upheld the verdict’s high ratio since it found that Sheetz had “crossed the line from reckless disregard of an individual’s rights, to willful, mean-spirited acts indicative of an intent to cause physical or emotional harm.”
  • This case was not about pickles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s