Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Several individuals who were employed by the City and County of San Francisco and were at least 40 years old when hired brought a class action lawsuit alleging that the City’s method for calculating disability retirement benefits under its retirement system discriminated against employees based on age. The system employs two formulas; Formula 1 is used if it yields a benefit exceeding a percentage threshold, while Formula 2 is used if the threshold is not met. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2, which imputes years of service until age 60, resulted in lower benefits for those who entered the retirement system at age 40 or older, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).After initial proceedings in the San Francisco City and County Superior Court—including a demurrer sustained on statute of limitations grounds and subsequent reversal by the Court of Appeal—the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting FEHA claims for disparate treatment and disparate impact, as well as claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and equal protection violations. The trial court certified a class and denied summary judgment due to triable issues of fact. A bench trial followed, where both parties presented expert testimony on whether Formula 2 disparately impacted older employees.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s findings. It affirmed the judgment, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not by age, and that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient as it was based on hypothetical calculations rather than actual data. The trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint after trial was also upheld, as any alleged error was not reversible on the record. The judgment in favor of the City was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

Jessica Garcia and other former employees brought a class action against The Merchant of Tennis, Inc., alleging failure to pay wages and other employment violations under California and federal law. In response, Merchant entered into approximately 954 individual settlement agreements (ISAs) with current and former employees, providing cash payments in exchange for waivers of their claims. Garcia, who had not signed an ISA, sought class certification and also moved to invalidate the ISAs, arguing that Merchant had obtained them through fraud and coercion, such as misrepresenting the scope of litigation and the claims being released.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County partially granted Garcia’s motion, finding the ISAs voidable at the election of each settling putative class member. The court ordered that curative notices be sent to those who had signed ISAs, allowing them to revoke their agreements and join the class action. However, the parties could not agree on the notice’s language, specifically whether it should inform class members that they might be required to repay the settlement amount if Merchant prevailed in the action. The trial court ruled that the notice did not need to include such repayment language, reasoning that federal cases suggested repayment was not required before joining the suit and that repayment could be treated as an offset to any judgment.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two reviewed the trial court’s order. It held that under California Civil Code sections 1689, 1691, and 1693, class members who rescind their ISAs may be required to repay Merchant the consideration received if Merchant prevails, but such repayment can be delayed until the conclusion of litigation. The trial court retains discretion to adjust equities between the parties at judgment. The writ of mandate was granted, directing the trial court to reconsider the curative notice in accordance with these principles. View "The Merchant of Tennis v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a long-term employee at a private aviation services provider, was diagnosed with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, she was permitted to work entirely from home as business slowed, with her in-person duties reassigned to another employee. As business returned to normal, management repeatedly asked her to resume a hybrid work schedule to address essential accounting functions that required physical presence. Although she verbally agreed to return on a part-time basis, she failed to attend in person as promised, communicated sporadically about her schedule, and ultimately missed multiple days of work without proper notice. After this pattern continued for several months, she was discharged for job abandonment.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted summary judgment for the employer. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, retaliation, or failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court determined that, even if such a case were made, the employer had provided legitimate business reasons for its decisions and had made substantial efforts to accommodate the plaintiff’s medical condition.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the decision de novo. The appellate court held that the plaintiff did not qualify as a “qualified individual” under the ADA because she could not perform the essential functions of her position, even with reasonable accommodation. The court emphasized that the employer’s repeated attempts to accommodate her were sufficient, and her failure to cooperate or consistently communicate precluded liability. The court also rejected her retaliation claim, finding no causal connection between her protected activity and her termination. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Haggins v. Wilson Air Center, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a collector and customer service representative in California, and upon being hired, electronically signed an arbitration agreement. The agreement broadly required arbitration for disputes relating to employment or termination, and covered claims based on federal, state, or local laws, including the California Labor Code. It also expressly prohibited class or collective adjudication and stated that it “shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and, to the extent permitted by such Act, the laws of the State of California.” In 2023, the plaintiff sued the defendant, asserting both individual and class claims for alleged violations of labor and business statutes.After the complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the defendant moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims and to dismiss the class claims. The defendant submitted evidence that it is a Delaware corporation, previously had offices in Washington, and sourced materials from outside California. The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not apply because her employment was exclusively within California and no evidence showed the agreement involved interstate commerce. The trial court found the arbitration agreement valid, held that the FAA applied based on the agreement’s express terms and supporting evidence, and dismissed the class claims per the agreement’s prohibition.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, considered whether the trial court correctly found the FAA governed the arbitration agreement. The appellate court held that the FAA applies because the parties expressly agreed in the contract to be governed by the Act, regardless of whether the underlying transaction actually involved interstate commerce. The court affirmed the order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims and dismissing the class claims. The defendant was awarded costs on appeal. View "Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Admin. Services" on Justia Law

Osvaldo Figueroa worked as a night-shift turkey loader for a poultry company. His main duties included catching and loading turkeys onto trucks, and sometimes fueling, sanitizing, and washing the trucks before the loading process. Employees recorded their work hours using a punch clock, and paystubs included entries for overtime hours, load trips (base pay per trip), and attendance hours. Figueroa alleged that he and other turkey loaders were not paid promised hourly wages and overtime, claiming violations of both the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina first dismissed Figueroa’s amended complaint, concluding that he was paid under a piece-rate system rather than an hourly wage system, and that he failed to sufficiently allege entitlement to unpaid overtime or hourly wages. The district court also found that he received adequate notice of his compensation structure under the NCWHA. After Figueroa amended his complaint again, the district court dismissed his NCWHA claims but allowed the FLSA claim to proceed to discovery. On summary judgment, the district court found that Figueroa was a piece-rate employee, that overtime was properly calculated according to FLSA regulations, and that Butterball kept accurate records. The court rejected Figueroa’s assertions of improper hour-shifting and unpaid pre-shift work due to lack of supporting evidence for his own situation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that Figueroa was properly classified as a piece-rate employee, not an hourly worker, and that Butterball correctly calculated and paid overtime according to FLSA provisions. The court also found that Figueroa did not establish a viable claim under the NCWHA, as any error in dismissal was harmless in light of the record, and that Butterball provided sufficient notice of pay terms. The district court’s orders were affirmed. View "Osvaldo Figueroa v. Butterball, LLC" on Justia Law

CenturyTel of Montana, Inc., a telecommunications provider and subsidiary of Lumen Technologies, maintained a longstanding collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 768, covering technicians in northwest Montana. In 2021, concerns arose among various union locals that Lumen was deploying non-union National Technicians to perform work within the jurisdiction of union-represented employees. In response, Local 768 requested detailed information from CenturyTel about the presence and activities of these technicians, aiming to monitor possible violations of the bargaining agreement. After repeated requests and partial responses from the company, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge, alleging CenturyTel’s failure to furnish information necessary for the union to carry out its representational duties.The National Labor Relations Board’s administrative law judge held an evidentiary hearing, at which testimony established that non-union technicians had worked within the union’s jurisdiction and that the union’s information request was relevant to potential grievances. The ALJ credited the union’s account of communications and found that the requested information was “plainly aimed at ascertaining” possible contract violations. The ALJ rejected the employer’s arguments that the union had failed to show an objective basis for its request and that all relevant information had already been provided. As a result, the ALJ concluded that CenturyTel had violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act and ordered the company to provide the requested information and post a notice of the violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the Board’s order. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the union had a reasonable belief, supported by objective evidence, that the information was relevant to its duties. The court denied CenturyTel’s petition for review and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement. View "CenturyTel of Montana, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Mr. Palmeri began his employment with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1997 and was promoted to the Senior Executive Service (SES) in 2020. He was not informed that joining the DEA SES would affect his appeal rights. In January 2022, the DEA proposed his removal based on alleged misconduct, but before the removal was finalized, Mr. Palmeri retired. The agency stated that, had he not retired, he would have been removed. He then appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board), claiming his retirement was involuntary and constituted a constructive removal.The DEA moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that SES employees in the DEA do not have the right to appeal adverse actions to the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 3151. After allowing for discovery and briefing, an Administrative Judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The full Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed and adopted this initial decision, explaining that DEA SES employees can only appeal adverse actions through procedures established by the Attorney General, but no such procedures or regulations have been promulgated.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the Board had jurisdiction over Mr. Palmeri’s appeal. The court held that the governing statutes clearly exclude DEA SES employees from Board appeal rights and require any hearing or appeal to be decided pursuant to regulations issued by the Attorney General, which do not exist. The court rejected arguments that lack of notice or absence of regulations should confer jurisdiction on the Board, and clarified that any constitutional claims must be pursued in a different forum. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "PALMERI v. MSPB " on Justia Law

Ayodeji Awe, a former chaplain at Harris Health System (HHS), alleged that he and other minority chaplains were underpaid during his tenure. After leaving HHS in 2020, Awe reapplied for a chaplain position in 2021 but was not rehired; HHS instead selected three other candidates. Awe believed the failure to rehire him was due to age discrimination and retaliation for his prior complaints about workplace issues, including underpayment of minority chaplains.Following receipt of a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in June 2022, Awe filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, asserting claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment for HHS on all claims, finding that Awe did not rebut HHS’s nondiscriminatory reasons for its hiring decisions. Specifically, the district court ruled that Awe failed to make a prima facie case on his ADEA claims and did not present sufficient evidence of pretext for his Title VII retaliation claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed. The Fifth Circuit held that Awe did not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, as one of the hired candidates was older than Awe, and another only five years younger. For ADEA retaliation, the court found Awe did not show his complaints were age-related. Although Awe established a prima facie Title VII retaliation claim, he failed to show that HHS’s stated preference for internal candidates was pretextual, nor that he was clearly better qualified than those hired. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Awe v. Harris Health" on Justia Law

A group of eleven current and former employees of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority challenged the Authority’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption. The policy allowed for exemptions if an employee provided sufficient medical documentation or demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief, provided that reasonable accommodations could be made without undue burden to the Authority. Thirteen employees applied for religious exemptions, but only the request of one fully remote employee was granted. One employee received a temporary medical exemption but was ultimately terminated after refusing vaccination once that exemption expired. Four appellants later became vaccinated and remained employed; the remaining seven were fired for noncompliance.After the Authority enacted its policy, the plaintiffs filed suit, alleging violations of their rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. The state court initially granted a temporary restraining order, but after removal to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the district court denied their preliminary injunction request. On a prior appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial as to most claims but remanded for further consideration of the First Amendment claim, instructing the district court to address the relevance of the granted medical exemption and to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny.On remand, the district court again denied a preliminary injunction, finding the policy to be generally applicable and thus subject to rational basis review, which it held the policy satisfied. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy’s medical and religious exemptions were not comparable for Free Exercise purposes, the policy was generally applicable, and the Authority’s interests justified the mandate under rational basis review. View "Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship Authority" on Justia Law

A corrections officer at the Anamosa State Penitentiary was killed during a prison escape attempt in March 2021, along with a nurse, when two inmates armed themselves with tools from the prison’s machine shop and attacked staff in the infirmary. The inmates were apprehended and convicted of first-degree murder. The officer’s surviving spouse filed compensation claims with the state appeal board against co-employees of the Iowa Department of Corrections, alleging gross negligence contributed to the security lapses that enabled the attack. The claims identified several co-employees by name as potential parties at fault.After the claims were withdrawn due to lack of resolution, the surviving spouse filed suit in the Iowa District Court for Jones County against twenty-six co-employees, including some not previously named in the administrative process. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Iowa’s workers’ compensation law precluded gross negligence claims against state or local government co-employees, that the spouse failed to comply with administrative requirements under the Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA), and that the pleading was insufficient under qualified immunity standards. The district court denied the motion on all grounds.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case after treating the appeal as an interlocutory application. The court held that Iowa Code section 85.2 does not bar gross negligence claims against state co-employees; such claims are permissible under section 85.20(2). The court also found that, while the administrative claims process under the ITCA was satisfied as to those co-employees named in the initial claims, it was not satisfied for those not identified. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was properly denied for co-employees named in the administrative claims and should have been granted for those who were not. The denial was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded. View "Montague v. Skinner" on Justia Law