Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Two employees of a publicly traded company raised concerns internally that the company had overstated its earnings by not accounting for slower-than-expected drilling speeds. Subsequently, an article in The Wall Street Journal reported similar allegations, and within three months, the company terminated both employees. The employees then filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, claiming their termination violated whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). An administrative proceeding resulted in a preliminary order for their reinstatement, which the company ignored.The employees sought to enforce the reinstatement order in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, interpreting the relevant statute as not granting it the power to enforce the preliminary order. The employees appealed this decision.While the appeal was pending, the employees chose to abandon the administrative process and filed a separate civil action in federal court. Consequently, the administrative proceedings were terminated. The company then moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the employees' request to enforce the preliminary reinstatement order no longer satisfied the redressability requirement for Article III standing. The preliminary order was extinguished with the dismissal of the administrative proceedings, and a federal court cannot enforce a non-existent order. Therefore, the employees lost Article III standing during the litigation, and no exception to mootness applied. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it on mootness grounds. View "Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Laurie DeVore, worked at the University of Kentucky from 1999 to 2022. She retired rather than comply with the University's COVID-19 test-or-vaccinate policy, which she claimed conflicted with her religious beliefs. DeVore filed a lawsuit alleging that the University violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to accommodate her religious beliefs. The University had denied her requests for a hybrid work schedule and religious exemptions from the testing policy, which required unvaccinated employees to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary judgment in favor of the University. The court found that DeVore did not establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination because she failed to demonstrate that the University's policy conflicted with her sincerely held religious beliefs. DeVore appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court examined whether DeVore had a sincere religious belief that conflicted with the University's testing policy. DeVore's objections to the nasal PCR tests were initially based on invasiveness, manipulation, and coercion. However, the University offered alternative testing methods, such as oral swab and saliva tests, which DeVore also rejected without providing evidence of a religious conflict with these alternatives.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that DeVore failed to establish a conflict between her religious beliefs and the University's testing policy. The court noted that DeVore's objections were largely based on personal moral codes and secular concerns rather than religious principles. Consequently, DeVore's Title VII claim did not succeed. View "DeVore v. University of Kentucky Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

In this labor dispute, several employees sued their employer, a steel manufacturer, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Alabama common law. They claimed the company failed to pay wages for all hours worked, improperly calculated overtime, and delayed overtime payments. The plaintiffs sought relief for themselves and similarly situated employees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ordered the defendant to produce key time and pay records multiple times over two years. The defendant repeatedly failed to comply, offering various excuses and blaming its third-party payroll processor, ADP. The court eventually issued a default judgment against the defendant due to its continuous noncompliance and misrepresentations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to issue a default judgment, finding that the defendant's conduct warranted such a severe sanction. The appellate court also upheld the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to reconsider the sanctions, noting that the district court had the discretion to revisit its interlocutory orders but did not abuse that discretion in this case.The appellate court also affirmed the district court's determination that the plaintiffs' claims regarding workweek calculations and bonus payments were well-pleaded. However, the appellate court vacated and remanded the district court's calculation of damages, instructing the lower court to provide a more thorough explanation of its reasoning regarding the statute of limitations defense. View "Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Sergio Ramirez, a former police officer, was terminated by the City of Indio Police Department following an internal affairs investigation. Ramirez was initially placed on administrative leave after being charged with rape and sexual assault, though he was later acquitted of all criminal charges. Despite the acquittal, the internal investigation concluded that Ramirez had violated several departmental policies, leading to his termination. Ramirez appealed the decision through the administrative appeal process outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Indio Police Officers’ Association.The arbitrator, after a full evidentiary hearing, recommended Ramirez's reinstatement with full back pay and benefits. However, the City Manager upheld the termination, citing Ramirez's poor judgment, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of an officer. Ramirez then petitioned the Superior Court of Riverside County for a writ of mandate, arguing that the City Manager should have deferred to the arbitrator's findings on the weight and credibility of the evidence. The Superior Court denied the petition, affirming the City Manager's decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that the MOU clearly vested the City Manager with the final authority to make disciplinary decisions, including the power to reject the arbitrator's advisory findings. The court found that the City Manager had conducted a thorough review of the arbitrator's recommendations and the evidence before making the final decision. The court also concluded that the administrative appeal process provided Ramirez with due process, as it included notice, an opportunity to respond, and a meaningful hearing. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed, upholding Ramirez's termination. View "Ramirez v. City of Indio" on Justia Law

Ephriam Rodriquez, a bus operator, was terminated by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) after accumulating excessive negative attendance points under his union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. His final absence on June 8, 2018, was due to a migraine headache. Following an informal hearing on June 26, where his discharge was recommended, Rodriquez applied for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and sought medical documentation to support his claim. Despite this, SEPTA held a formal hearing and approved his termination.Rodriquez filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging FMLA retaliation and interference. The jury found in favor of Rodriquez on the interference claim, awarding him $20,000 in economic damages, but ruled in favor of SEPTA on the retaliation claim. SEPTA then moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Rodriquez did not have a “serious health condition” under the FMLA at the time of his absence. The District Court granted SEPTA’s motion, leading to Rodriquez’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding that Rodriquez failed to demonstrate that his migraines constituted a “chronic serious health condition” as defined by the FMLA. Specifically, Rodriquez did not provide evidence of periodic visits to a healthcare provider for his migraines before his termination, which is a requirement under the FMLA regulations. The court concluded that there was no legally sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Rodriquez had a qualifying serious health condition at the time of his June 8 absence. View "Rodriquez v. SEPTA" on Justia Law

Estella Morris, an employee of the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (CAVHS), filed civil-rights claims against her employer, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation. Morris, who is black, claimed she was denied a promotion to Chief of Social Work Service in favor of a white colleague, Anne Wright, despite having veteran preference. Morris also alleged that her pay upgrade request was sabotaged by her supervisor, Michael Ballard, in retaliation for her previous discrimination complaints.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of CAVHS. The court found that Morris had established a prima facie case of race discrimination but concluded that CAVHS had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for promoting Wright—her more favorable references. The court held that Morris failed to show that this reason was a pretext for racial discrimination. Regarding the retaliation claim, the court found no evidence that Ballard's actions were causally linked to Morris's protected activities or that the person who denied the pay upgrade was aware of her discrimination complaints.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Morris did not demonstrate a causal connection between her race and the promotion decision. The court also found that Morris failed to show that Ballard's alleged sabotage of her pay upgrade request was linked to her protected activities. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that CAVHS's actions were motivated by racial discrimination or retaliation. View "Morris v. Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

Armando P. Ibanez, a Mexican-American male, was employed by Texas A&M University–Kingsville (TAMUK) as an Assistant Professor of Communications/Radio-Television-Film. After five years, he applied for tenure and promotion to associate professor. TAMUK's requirements included the completion of at least two juried creative activities. Ibanez produced several creative works, but only one, a film titled "Men of Steel," was labeled as juried. His application for tenure and promotion was initially recommended by his departmental committee but was subsequently denied by the department chair, college committee, college dean, and provost, who cited his failure to meet the minimum requirements for juried creative activities.Ibanez appealed the decision, and an advisory committee found a prima facie case for reconsideration. The tenure appeals committee supported him, but the promotion appeals committee did not. Ultimately, the university president denied his tenure and promotion based on the negative recommendations and perceived lack of scholarship. Ibanez then sued TAMUK, alleging racial and national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of TAMUK, dismissing Ibanez’s claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that Ibanez failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he did not meet TAMUK’s baseline tenure requirements of two juried creative activities. Additionally, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact suggesting that Ibanez was denied tenure under circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of TAMUK. View "Ibanez v. Texas A&M" on Justia Law

A former employee, Liu, sued her employer, Miniso, alleging various employment-related claims, including sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and wage and hour violations. Liu claimed that she faced severe and pervasive harassment and discrimination based on her sexual orientation and gender identity, and that she was misclassified as an exempt employee, leading to unpaid wages and denied breaks. Liu also alleged that she was retaliated against for refusing to participate in illegal practices and for whistleblowing, which led to her constructive termination.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Miniso's motion to compel arbitration of Liu's claims. Miniso argued that Liu's allegations of sexual harassment were insufficient to state a claim and that the arbitration agreement should be enforced for the non-sexual harassment claims. The trial court found that Liu had adequately stated a claim for sexual harassment and, based on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), ruled that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for all of Liu's claims.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that under the EFAA, if a plaintiff's case includes at least one claim of sexual harassment, the entire case is exempt from arbitration at the plaintiff's election. The court emphasized that the EFAA's language invalidates arbitration agreements with respect to the entire case, not just the sexual harassment claims. This interpretation avoids the inefficiency of having separate proceedings for different claims and aligns with the legislative intent to protect plaintiffs from being compelled into arbitration for sexual harassment disputes. View "Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc." on Justia Law

Santanu Das, a sales associate at Tata Consultancy Services, participated in a compensation incentive plan that promised a bonus exceeding $400,000 for achieving certain sales targets. Das met the target but was paid less than $100,000. He sued Tata under Illinois law, which requires employers to pay all agreed-upon compensation. Tata argued that disclaimers in the incentive plan negated any agreement to pay the bonus. The district court dismissed Das’s complaint, leading to this appeal.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially dismissed Das’s claims without prejudice. Das amended his complaint, adding breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claims. The district court dismissed the repleaded claims with prejudice but allowed Das to replead the new claims. Das chose to appeal only the Wage Act and fraudulent misrepresentation claims. The district court found that the disclaimers in the incentive plan prevented the formation of an agreement to pay wages and that Das’s fraudulent misrepresentation claim lacked the necessary particularity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that Illinois law does not treat disclaimers as necessarily preventing the formation of mutual assent to terms. The court noted that past practices between Das and Tata could establish mutual assent. The court concluded that Das had plausibly alleged that Tata agreed to pay him the full bonus, reversing the district court’s dismissal of the Wage Act claim. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, as Das failed to allege a scheme to defraud.The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on the Wage Act claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation claim was affirmed. View "Das v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited" on Justia Law

Heide Montoya, a former Superintendent of On-Board Services at Amtrak, was discharged in 2020 and later rehired to a different position. Montoya filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and other state-law claims. The litigation became complicated due to a dispute over arbitration. Amtrak argued that Montoya had agreed to arbitration by continuing to work after receiving an email notice. Montoya denied receiving the arbitration agreement, and the district judge could not resolve the issue due to a lack of definitive evidence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, held a status hearing where the judge indicated that the evidence was insufficient to determine if an arbitration agreement existed. The judge suggested that the parties confer and possibly provide a joint statement on how to proceed. Instead of following these steps, Amtrak filed a notice of appeal, relying on §16(a)(1) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which allows interlocutory appeals from orders bypassing arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that §16 of the FAA only applies when the Act as a whole is applicable. Section 1 of the FAA excludes contracts of employment for railroad employees, among others, from its scope. Since Montoya was an Amtrak employee, the case falls outside the FAA. The court referenced similar cases and legal precedents, including Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon and Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, to support its conclusion. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit dismissed Amtrak's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the district court still needs to resolve whether Montoya agreed to arbitrate disputes under state law. View "Montoya v. National Railroad Passenger Corp." on Justia Law