Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Hood River Distillers, Inc. operates a liquor distillery in Oregon, employing approximately twenty-five unionized employees represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 670. In January 2019, the Union and Hood River began negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. The negotiations focused on health insurance, wages, and other benefits. Despite several bargaining sessions, the parties did not reach an agreement, and Hood River unilaterally implemented its final offer in May 2020, leading to a strike by the Union.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Hood River violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by unilaterally changing employment terms without reaching an impasse in negotiations. Hood River argued that the Union engaged in unjustified delay tactics, justifying its unilateral actions. The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled against Hood River, and the NLRB affirmed the ALJ's decision, finding that the Union's actions did not constitute unjustified delay tactics and that no impasse had been reached.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's conclusion that Hood River acted unlawfully by unilaterally implementing its March 30 offer. The court found that the Union's insistence on in-person mediation during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic was not unreasonable and did not constitute unjustified delay tactics. The court also noted that Hood River failed to preserve its challenge to the remedy awarded by the NLRB.The court denied Hood River's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement, affirming the NLRB's decision that Hood River violated the NLRA by unilaterally changing employment terms without reaching an impasse and without justification based on the Union's conduct. View "Hood River Distillers, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Melissa Mandell-Brown filed a complaint against Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Zamaneh Zamanian, asserting 16 causes of action, including claims for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Labor Code, as well as common law claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by a separate statement of 161 undisputed facts, attorney declarations, and witness declarations. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion or a separate statement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after plaintiff failed to file the required opposition or separate statement, despite being granted two continuances. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and concluded that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of her causes of action. Plaintiff appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), by granting the motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite separate statement. The appellate court noted that the trial court had the discretion to grant the motion for summary judgment when the opposing party fails to comply with the requirement of a separate statement. Given the complexity of the case and the plaintiff's failure to submit any opposition or appear at the hearing, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc." on Justia Law

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) operates a space launch business and a global satellite-based internet service called Starlink. In June 2022, a group of SpaceX employees sent an open letter demanding certain actions from the company and solicited support through a survey. SpaceX discharged four employees involved in the letter's distribution for violating company policies. Additional employees were later discharged for lying during a leak investigation and for unrelated performance issues. These employees filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in November 2022, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act.The NLRB Regional Director found merit in the claims and issued an order consolidating the employees' cases with a hearing set for March 2024. SpaceX sued the NLRB in the Southern District of Texas (SDTX) in January 2024, challenging the NLRB's structure as unconstitutional and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The NLRB moved to transfer the case to the Central District of California (CDCA), arguing improper venue. The SDTX granted the transfer motion in February 2024. SpaceX petitioned for an emergency writ of mandamus to vacate the transfer order, which was initially stayed but later denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. SpaceX argued that the district court effectively denied its motion for a preliminary injunction by failing to rule on it by May 2, 2024. The Fifth Circuit found that SpaceX did not demonstrate the "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence" required for an immediate appeal. The court noted that participating in the administrative proceeding did not constitute irreparable harm and that the district court did not act unreasonably in waiting to resolve procedural challenges. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed SpaceX's appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Kirstyn Paige Bashaw was employed as the Director of Social Services at Majestic Care of Whitehall, a skilled nursing home and residential facility in Ohio, from November 2021 until her termination in March 2022. Her role involved managing the Social Service department and attending daily meetings. During her tenure, Bashaw was frequently late or absent without authorization, and she raised concerns about resident care and alleged inappropriate behavior by her manager, Edward Beatrice. Bashaw also secretly recorded work meetings and discussed her intention to leave the job with a Human Resources representative.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of Majestic Care, finding that the company had provided three non-pretextual reasons for Bashaw’s termination: her surreptitious recording of work meetings, her attendance issues, and her expressed desire to leave the job. The court did not find it necessary to resolve whether a fourth reason, related to a resident's readmission, was pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Majestic Care had legitimate, non-pretextual reasons for terminating Bashaw. Specifically, the court found that Bashaw’s secret recordings undermined trust and posed legal risks, her attendance issues were valid grounds for termination, and Majestic Care reasonably believed she no longer wished to work there. The court concluded that these reasons were sufficient to defeat Bashaw’s retaliation claim under Title VII and Ohio law. View "Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall" on Justia Law

Douglas Ramsey, the plaintiff, sued his former employer, Sheet Pile, L.L.C., for breach of his employment agreement and a promissory note under which he had loaned the company money. Sheet Pile counterclaimed for breach of the employment agreement and sought an injunction to force Ramsey to return confidential information. Ramsey largely succeeded at trial, receiving an award for prejudgment interest and the denial of Sheet Pile’s requested injunction. Sheet Pile appealed, challenging the jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, the grant of prejudgment interest, and the denial of injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas oversaw the initial trial. The jury found in favor of Ramsey, awarding him the final $5,000 of his salary and $155,878.47 in damages on the loan. The jury also found that Ramsey breached the employment agreement but was not liable due to Sheet Pile’s prior material breach. After the trial, the district court awarded Ramsey prejudgment interest and denied Sheet Pile’s request for a permanent injunction. Sheet Pile filed a post-judgment motion reiterating its arguments, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions on the jury instructions and the finding of prior material breach. However, it vacated the award of prejudgment interest, finding that the jury had improperly included interest in its damages award, leading to a double recovery. The court remanded the case for the district court to offer a remittitur based on the amount owed on the loan as of the date Ramsey filed suit. The court also instructed the district court to consider an injunction requiring Ramsey to return any documents containing confidential information. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ramsey v. Sheet Pile" on Justia Law

Annette Rodriguez, the plaintiff, served as the Director of the City of Corpus Christi and Nueces County Public Health District. Her salary was split between the City and the County. In 2019, the City increased her salary to 90% of the market rate. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Rodriguez requested and initially received overtime pay, but the City later stopped these payments. Rodriguez faced several allegations of policy violations and creating a hostile work environment, leading to a disciplinary memorandum. Despite a positive evaluation from the County, the City terminated her in 2022 and hired a new director.Rodriguez sued the City in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, claiming violations under the Equal Pay Act, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed her Section 1983 claim on the pleadings, finding she did not allege a constitutionally protected interest in continued employment. The court granted summary judgment to the City on the remaining claims, concluding Rodriguez was exempt from FLSA overtime pay requirements, did not establish the equal-work or equal-pay prongs of her EPA claim, and failed to identify a proper comparator for her Title VII claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's rulings, agreeing that Rodriguez did not engage in protected activity under the FLSA, failed to identify a proper comparator for her Title VII and EPA claims, and did not establish pretext for retaliation. The court also found that Rodriguez remained an exempt employee despite receiving additional overtime pay temporarily. The court concluded that the City paid Rodriguez on a salary basis, maintaining her exempt status under the FLSA. View "Rodriguez v. City of Corpus Christi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an intelligence analyst with the FBI, was required to complete the FBI Basic Field Training Course (BFTC), which included in-person training sessions and various tasks and assessments, some of which were scheduled outside working hours. Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that they were not compensated for all overtime hours worked during the BFTC.The United States Court of Federal Claims denied the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the OPM regulation 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(3), which bars overtime compensation for entry-level training, was invalid. The court reasoned that the regulation was inconsistent with the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations and that the government failed to justify the categorical rule against overtime compensation for entry-level training. The court certified the validity of the regulation for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the OPM regulation 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(3) is valid. The court reasoned that the differences between OPM and DOL regulations are justified by the need to accommodate the differences between federal and non-federal employment, particularly considering the Government Employees Training Act (GETA), which generally prohibits overtime pay for training for federal employees. The court concluded that OPM's regulation is a legitimate policy choice consistent with both the FLSA and GETA. The case was remanded to determine whether the OPM regulation is consistent with the FLSA. View "DOE NO. 1 v. US " on Justia Law

Rachel Moniz and Paola Correa filed separate lawsuits against Adecco USA, Inc. under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA), alleging violations of the Labor Code. Moniz and Adecco settled their case, but Correa challenged the fairness of the settlement. The trial court approved the revised settlement over Correa's objections and awarded attorney’s fees to Moniz’s counsel. Correa's request for a service award and attorney’s fees for her own work was largely denied. Correa appealed, arguing the trial court's analysis of the revised settlement was flawed and that her request for attorney’s fees and a service award should have been granted.The San Mateo County Superior Court overruled Adecco's demurrer in Moniz's case, while the San Francisco Superior Court sustained Adecco's demurrer in Correa's case. Correa's motion to intervene in Moniz's suit was denied, and her subsequent appeal was also denied. The trial court approved Moniz's settlement with Adecco, awarding Moniz a service award and attorney’s fees, but denied Correa’s requests. Correa's motions for a new trial and to vacate the judgment were denied, leading to her appeal.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. While the appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., which disapproved of the reasoning in Moniz II regarding Correa’s standing. The Court of Appeal concluded that Correa and her counsel lacked standing to challenge the judgment based on the Supreme Court's decision in Turrieta. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. View "Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Santa Ana Police Officers Association (SAPOA) and certain anonymous City of Santa Ana police officers (Doe Officers) sued the City of Santa Ana, alleging wrongful disclosure of confidential personnel records, failure to investigate a complaint about the disclosure, and denial of a request for related communications. The first amended complaint included four causes of action: violation of Penal Code section 832.7 and Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045, negligence, failure to investigate under Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7, and violation of the Meyers-Milias Brown Act (MMBA).The Superior Court of Orange County sustained the City’s demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court found that the Doe Officers could not proceed anonymously without statutory authority or court authorization. It also concluded that the SAPOA lacked standing and that there was no private right of action for the alleged violations of the Penal Code and Evidence Code sections cited.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the judgment as to the Doe Officers, agreeing they lacked authorization to proceed anonymously. It also affirmed the trial court’s decision regarding the first, second, and fourth causes of action, finding no private right of action for damages under the cited statutes and that the SAPOA failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the MMBA claim. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment concerning the third cause of action, holding that the SAPOA had standing to seek mandamus relief to compel the City to investigate the complaint and notify the SAPOA of the disposition, as required by Penal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this cause of action. View "Santa Ana Police Officers Assn. v. City of Santa Ana" on Justia Law

A minor, through his mother, filed a lawsuit against Best Academy after his teacher, Aaron Hjermstad, sexually assaulted him. Hjermstad had a history of sexual abuse allegations from his previous employment, which Best Academy did not uncover during their hiring process. The school did not obtain reference letters or contact references, which were part of their hiring protocol.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Best Academy, reasoning that hiring decisions are always protected by the discretionary-function exception to municipal tort liability under Minnesota Statutes section 466.03, subdivision 6. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, applying the same reasoning.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that a municipality’s hiring decision is not categorically a policy-level decision involving weighing competing economic, social, political, and financial considerations. The court emphasized that the discretionary-function exception should be interpreted narrowly and that municipalities bear the burden of proving that their conduct involved such considerations. The court found that Best Academy did not provide evidence that its decision not to investigate Hjermstad’s background was based on balancing policy considerations. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Minor Doe 601 v. Best Academy" on Justia Law