Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

A shift supervisor at a coffee shop in Ann Arbor, Michigan, led efforts to organize a union at her workplace. She was a prominent organizer, engaging in various activities such as wearing union buttons, speaking to customers about unionization, and attending a labor board hearing. Several months into the campaign, she was terminated by her employer, who cited her violation of a company policy requiring at least two employees to be present in the café. The supervisor had left a barista alone at the store at the end of her shift without notifying management, which the company claimed was the reason for her discharge.After her termination, Workers United filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that the discharge was motivated by anti-union animus. An Administrative Law Judge found in favor of the union, concluding that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual and that the discharge was unlawfully motivated. The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision and expanded the remedy, ordering the employer to compensate the supervisor not only for lost earnings and benefits but also for any “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” resulting from the discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case on the NLRB’s application for enforcement of its order. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that the supervisor’s discharge was motivated by anti-union animus and thus constituted an unfair labor practice. However, the court determined that the NLRB exceeded its statutory authority under the National Labor Relations Act by awarding compensation for “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” beyond lost earnings and benefits. The court granted enforcement of the unfair labor practice finding but vacated the expanded remedy and remanded for further proceedings. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Starbucks Corp." on Justia Law

Paul D. Russell, a civilian employee at the Irwin Army Community Hospital in Fort Riley, Kansas, alleged that his female supervisor, Major Tamara Tran, discriminated against him and other male employees, creating a hostile work environment based on gender. Russell cited several incidents, including gender-segregated meetings, differential treatment in access to the supervisor, public criticism, changes to his job title, exclusion from leadership communications, and an attempt to appoint a less qualified female employee as acting chief during Tran’s maternity leave. An internal Army investigation found that Tran had discriminated on the basis of gender, violating Army policy, but cleared Russell of any wrongdoing.After exhausting administrative remedies, Russell filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, claiming a violation of Title VII due to a hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Army, finding that Tran’s actions, while motivated by gender bias, were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to meet the legal standard for a hostile work environment under Title VII. The court noted that the internal investigation’s findings did not address the required severity or pervasiveness analysis.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. Russell argued that the district court applied an overly stringent standard in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, but the Tenth Circuit held that Muldrow did not alter the established requirement that hostile work environment claims must show conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive. The Tenth Circuit also found that Russell had waived his argument regarding the weight of the internal investigation report. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the severity or pervasiveness standard remains controlling for hostile work environment claims under Title VII. View "Russell v. Driscoll" on Justia Law

Hiran Management, a small karaoke restaurant in Houston, Texas, employed eight front-of-house workers who became dissatisfied with their manager’s practices, including being assigned extra duties without increased pay and inconsistent compensation for “shift supervisor” roles. After a contentious meeting with management, the employees walked out, went on strike, and presented a list of demands. The employer subsequently terminated all eight striking employees.Following these terminations, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed an administrative complaint, alleging that Hiran Management violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by firing the employees for engaging in protected concerted activity. An administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the NLRB, and the Board adopted the ALJ’s findings with minor adjustments. The Board ordered Hiran to cease its unfair labor practices, reinstate the employees, and compensate them for lost earnings and all other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms resulting from the terminations.Hiran Management petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, while the NLRB sought enforcement of its order. The Fifth Circuit held that the NLRB lacks statutory authority under the NLRA to award full compensatory damages for all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, as such damages are legal rather than equitable remedies. The court granted Hiran’s petition in part, denied the NLRB’s enforcement petition in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, limiting the NLRB’s remedial authority to equitable relief such as reinstatement and backpay. View "Hiran Management v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization in Detroit, which provides educational and family services to at-risk youth, employed the plaintiff as a full-time case manager after she had previously worked as an independent contractor. The plaintiff’s responsibilities included monitoring students and managing case files, a task that required onsite work due to funding and audit requirements from a key county contract. After a building flood, the plaintiff raised health concerns about mold exposure and requested to work remotely, providing doctor’s notes that did not explicitly require remote work. The employer accommodated her request temporarily by shifting her to part-time remote work, but emphasized that onsite file management was essential. The plaintiff later returned to full-time onsite work. Over the following year, she filed several complaints with state agencies regarding workplace safety, pay, and reimbursement issues. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the organization faced financial difficulties, leading to a restructuring that offered the plaintiff a choice between an independent contractor role with reduced hours and benefits or a severance package. She declined both, ending her employment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on all claims, finding insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and wrongful termination. The court determined that the plaintiff could not perform essential job functions remotely and that the employer’s actions were based on legitimate business reasons.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of a hostile work environment, disability-based discrimination, or retaliation under federal and state law. The court also found that the employer’s restructuring and accommodation decisions were not pretextual and that the plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim was inadequately developed and unsupported by the record. View "Kellar v. The Yunion, Inc." on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an employee in Nevada worked for a large retailer that required workers to undergo COVID-19 testing before each shift, following state emergency orders and workplace safety recommendations. The company did not pay employees for the time spent on these pre-shift tests. The employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of Nevada’s wage-hour statutes and the state constitution, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage, overtime, and timely payment upon termination.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, which had argued that the time spent on COVID-19 testing was not compensable “work” under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA). The district court held that Nevada law had not incorporated the PPA, and thus the pre-shift screenings were compensable. The court then certified a question to the Supreme Court of Nevada, asking whether Nevada law incorporates the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the certified question and determined that Nevada’s wage-hour statutes do not incorporate the PPA’s broad exceptions to compensable work. The court found that Nevada law provides only narrow, specific exceptions to work compensation, unlike the PPA’s general exclusions for preliminary and postliminary activities. The court concluded that the Nevada Legislature did not intend to adopt the PPA’s exceptions, as reflected in the statutory language and legislative history. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question in the negative, holding that Nevada’s wage-hour laws do not incorporate the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work. View "AMAZON.COM SERVS., LLC VS. MALLOY" on Justia Law

A physician employed jointly by a Kansas hospital and its parent health system alleged that he was fired and later reported to the state medical licensing board in retaliation for reporting another doctor’s alleged sexual harassment of nurses. The physician had served in various roles at the hospital, including as Chief Medical Officer, and had made a formal complaint about a colleague’s conduct. After an internal investigation into an unrelated anonymous complaint about the physician’s own conduct, the hospital terminated his employment and subsequently referred several of his cases for outside peer review, which led to reports being filed with the state licensing board.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to the hospital and health system on the physician’s Title VII retaliation claims, finding that he could not show the reasons for his termination or the reports to the licensing board were pretextual. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims. The physician appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the physician presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the hospital’s internal investigation and subsequent actions were motivated by retaliatory animus, particularly under a “cat’s paw” theory, where biased subordinates influenced the ultimate decisionmakers. The court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the stated reasons for termination and reporting were pretextual, including evidence of disparate treatment and an unfair investigation. The Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on both Title VII retaliation claims and remanded for further proceedings. It also directed the district court to reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "Byrnes v. St. Catherine Hospital" on Justia Law

An employee began working at a foundry in Minnesota and, after developing back problems, was placed on a lifting restriction by her doctor. She informed her employer of this restriction, but the employer terminated her employment without attempting to provide accommodations. The employee then applied for unemployment benefits, prompting the employer to complete a questionnaire for the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) regarding her termination and disability. In the questionnaire, the employer indicated it had not tried to accommodate her condition.The employee subsequently filed a lawsuit under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. During discovery, the employer sought to exclude the DEED questionnaire from evidence at trial, arguing it was absolutely privileged under Minnesota Statutes section 268.19, subdivision 2(c). The District Court agreed and excluded the document, reasoning that information created solely for unemployment insurance purposes was inadmissible in other civil proceedings. After a bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of the employer and dismissed the employee’s claims. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the questionnaire was absolutely privileged and inadmissible.The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed the case to determine whether section 268.19, subdivision 2(c), bars admission of such documents in civil cases. The court held that the phrase “absolutely privileged” in the statute provides immunity from liability for information submitted to DEED, but does not create a general rule of inadmissibility for such evidence in unrelated civil proceedings. Because the employee’s discrimination claim was not based on the content of the DEED questionnaire, its exclusion was erroneous. However, the court found the error was not prejudicial, as the excluded evidence was cumulative of other admitted evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, but on different grounds. View "McBee vs. Team Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Two former employees of the University of California, after leaving their positions, delayed applying for retirement benefits under the University of California Retirement Plan (the Plan) until several years after reaching the normal retirement age of 60. When they eventually applied, both requested retroactive monthly retirement payments dating back to when they first became eligible. The Regents of the University of California denied these requests, interpreting the Plan to provide benefits only from the date of application forward. The plaintiffs, representing a class of similarly situated former employees, argued that the Plan entitled them to retroactive benefits or, alternatively, that The Regents breached a fiduciary duty by failing to inform them that retroactive benefits were unavailable.The Superior Court of Alameda County granted summary adjudication to The Regents on the breach of contract claim, finding that the Plan did not provide for retroactive monthly benefits prior to a member’s application. The court later held a bench trial on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, ultimately concluding that The Regents had not breached its duty to inform members about their retirement options, as the Plan documents and related communications were sufficient to fully and fairly inform a reasonable plan beneficiary.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that the Plan’s language unambiguously requires a member to apply for retirement benefits before those benefits become payable, and that retroactive monthly benefits are not available for periods before an application is filed. The court also affirmed that The Regents met its fiduciary duty of disclosure by providing adequate information about the Plan and its options. The judgment in favor of The Regents was affirmed. View "Mass v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

North Mountain Foothills Apartments (NMFA), a company managing a large apartment complex in Phoenix, Arizona, hired Jasper Press as a maintenance technician during a period of increased workload due to a heatwave. Press discussed his compensation and the poor conditions at the complex with several coworkers. Management became aware that other employees knew about Press’s pay and housing benefits, leading to a meeting where Press was reprimanded for these discussions and told not to talk about pest issues with residents. The day after this meeting, Press was terminated, allegedly for failing to complete work orders. Press filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging unfair labor practices.An administrative law judge held an evidentiary hearing and found that NMFA violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating Press about his wage discussions, issuing overly broad directives restricting such discussions, threatening reprisals, and discharging Press for engaging in protected activities. The NLRB adopted these findings and ordered remedies including reinstatement and back pay for Press. NMFA appealed, raising for the first time constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure and process, and also contested the Board’s factual findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to consider NMFA’s unexhausted constitutional claims because such structural challenges are not suited to agency resolution. The court rejected NMFA’s Article II removal protection challenge for lack of demonstrated harm, found no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in NLRB proceedings, and held that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions within the NLRB does not violate due process. On the merits, the court found substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that Press was discharged for protected activity and granted enforcement of the NLRB’s order. View "NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. NORTH MOUNTAIN FOOTHILLS APARTMENTS, LLC" on Justia Law

A physician specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation was employed by a medical practice under a three-year contract that anticipated partnership if not terminated. After patient and staff complaints about her conduct, the practice proposed a new one-year contract without a partnership track, which she refused to sign. She was then terminated with 90 days’ notice. The physician alleged that her termination was due to age and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation for stating her intent to file an EEOC complaint, and also brought a breach of contract claim.After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The District Judge reviewed the report and recommendation (R&R) only for clear error, concluding that the physician’s objections were improper because they repeated arguments made before the Magistrate Judge, and adopted the R&R in full. The physician appealed, arguing that her objections were timely and specific, and that the District Judge should have conducted de novo review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the District Court erred in applying only clear error review, as the physician’s objections were proper and required de novo review. However, the appellate court found this error harmless because it reviews summary judgment decisions de novo. On its own review, the Second Circuit concluded that the physician failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact on her preserved claims of sex discrimination, aiding and abetting discrimination, and retaliation. The court also found that her age discrimination and breach of contract claims were not preserved for appellate review. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants. View "Nambiar v. The Central Orthopedic Group, LLP" on Justia Law