Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between the law firm Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner and its former associate, Edward Festeryga. Abraham Watkins terminated Festeryga’s employment after discovering that he attempted to take clients and firm files to a new firm. Abraham Watkins sued Festeryga in Texas state court for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract. Festeryga moved to dismiss the suit under Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute, the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which stayed the expedited discovery sought by Abraham Watkins. Despite agreeing to produce certain documents, Festeryga filed a notice of removal to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction as a Canadian citizen.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas remanded the case back to state court. The district court did not address whether Festeryga had shown diversity of citizenship but concluded that Festeryga waived his right to remove by participating in state court proceedings, specifically by filing a TCPA motion to dismiss. The district court found that this action demonstrated an intent to invoke the jurisdiction of the state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case to determine if it had appellate jurisdiction over the remand order. The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction, citing its precedent in In re Weaver, which held that waiver-based remand orders are jurisdictional under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and thus unappealable under § 1447(d). The court noted that although it disagreed with the reasoning in Weaver, it was bound by the rule of orderliness to follow the precedent. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga" on Justia Law

Michele Tourangeau filed a complaint against her former employer, Nappi Distributors, alleging nine employment-related claims. Nappi moved for summary judgment on all claims, but the District Court denied the motion for all but one claim, leading to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of Nappi on all claims. Tourangeau then filed a motion for a new trial, citing juror bias and errors in jury instructions, which the District Court denied.Tourangeau appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. She argued that the District Court erred in not disqualifying a juror who allegedly displayed bias and failed to answer voir dire questions truthfully. The District Court had previously determined that the juror's conduct and Facebook activity did not demonstrate bias sufficient to warrant disqualification. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the District Court's handling of the juror bias allegations, noting that the District Court had appropriately assessed the juror's behavior and responses.Tourangeau also challenged the jury's verdict on one of her Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims, arguing that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence and that the District Court erred in not giving a specific jury instruction. The appellate court upheld the District Court's decision, finding that Nappi had provided sufficient evidence that the pay differential was based on a business decision unrelated to sex. The court also agreed with the District Court's refusal to give the requested jury instruction, as there was no evidence of a prior illegal practice of gender discrimination in hiring.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, concluding that there was no reversible error in the handling of the juror bias allegations or the EPA claim. View "Tourangeau v. Nappi Distributors" on Justia Law

Peter Quach filed a lawsuit against California Commerce Club (Commerce Club) after being terminated from his job at the casino where he had worked for nearly 30 years. Quach's complaint included claims of wrongful termination, age discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, and he demanded a jury trial. Commerce Club had previously provided Quach with a signed arbitration agreement from 2015, which mandated binding arbitration for employment-related disputes. Instead of moving to compel arbitration, Commerce Club answered the complaint and engaged in extensive discovery, including propounding interrogatories and taking Quach’s deposition.The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied Commerce Club’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that Commerce Club had waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation for 13 months. The court noted that Commerce Club had actively participated in discovery and requested a jury trial, actions inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. Commerce Club appealed, and the Second Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Quach had not shown sufficient prejudice from Commerce Club’s delay in seeking arbitration.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and abrogated the state’s arbitration-specific prejudice requirement, aligning with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. The court held that under California law, as under federal law, courts should apply the same principles to determine waiver of the right to compel arbitration as they do for other contracts. The court concluded that Commerce Club had waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. View "Quach v. Cal. Commerce Club, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Business and Professions Code section 7451, enacted through Proposition 22, which classifies app-based drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash as independent contractors rather than employees, provided certain conditions are met. This classification exempts these drivers from California workers’ compensation laws, which typically apply to employees. Plaintiffs, including several individuals and unions, argue that section 7451 conflicts with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution, which grants the Legislature plenary power to create and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation.The Alameda County Superior Court found Proposition 22 unconstitutional, reasoning that it improperly limited the Legislature’s power to govern workers’ compensation, a power deemed "unlimited" by the state Constitution. The court held that the people must amend the Constitution through an initiative constitutional amendment, not an initiative statute, to impose such limitations. Consequently, the court invalidated Proposition 22 in its entirety.The California Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that article XIV, section 4 does not preclude the electorate from using its initiative power to legislate on workers’ compensation matters. The court reasoned that the Legislature’s power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and that Proposition 22 does not conflict with this constitutional provision. The court did, however, affirm the invalidation of certain severable provisions of Proposition 22 not at issue in this appeal.The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment, agreeing that section 7451 does not conflict with article XIV, section 4. The court held that the Legislature’s plenary power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and does not preclude the electorate from enacting legislation through the initiative process. The court did not address whether other provisions of Proposition 22 improperly constrain the Legislature’s authority, as those issues were not presented in this case. View "Castellanos v. State of California" on Justia Law

A staff psychologist at a federal prison discovered that a corrections lieutenant operated an Instagram account with sexually offensive content, some of which targeted her. When she reported this to prison leadership, her complaints were dismissed, and the lieutenant's posts became more aggressive. Despite her repeated complaints, the prison's response was slow and ineffective, leading her to feel unsafe and eventually leave her job.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the government, concluding that the psychologist had not shown an objectively hostile work environment and that the prison had taken reasonable remedial actions. The court limited its consideration to five specific posts and determined that these did not occur within the physical workplace.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court erred by not considering the totality of the circumstances, including the broader context of the harassment and the prison's inadequate response. The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that evidence of sexually harassing conduct, even if not expressly targeting the plaintiff, and non-sexual conduct that could be seen as retaliatory or intimidating, should be considered. The court also rejected the notion that only conduct occurring inside the physical workplace is actionable, especially given the prevalence of social media. The court found that the plaintiff had raised triable issues of fact regarding the hostile work environment and the prison's failure to take prompt and effective remedial measures. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "OKONOWSKY V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Allan Sanders, a foreman general at Union Pacific Railroad Company, sued his employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Sanders claimed that Union Pacific discriminated against him by imposing work limitations due to perceived cardiovascular health issues and by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation during a cardiovascular test. Sanders had suffered a brief cardiac arrest due to complications from a bleeding ulcer but had fully recovered. Union Pacific required him to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation, including a treadmill test, which he could not complete due to knee pain from osteoarthritis. Sanders requested an alternative test on a bicycle, which Union Pacific denied, leading to work restrictions that prevented him from returning to his job.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Union Pacific’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after a jury found in favor of Sanders on both claims and awarded him damages. Union Pacific appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Union Pacific regarded Sanders as disabled due to perceived cardiovascular issues and that Sanders was qualified to perform his job. The court also found that Union Pacific’s refusal to allow an alternative test constituted a failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The court rejected Union Pacific’s “direct threat” defense, concluding that the company’s decision was not objectively reasonable or based on the best available evidence. The appellate court upheld the jury’s verdict on both the disparate treatment and failure-to-accommodate claims. View "Sanders v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Enright Seeding, Inc. is involved in a dispute with the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO, regarding the nature of their collective bargaining agreement. Enright Seeding, a construction industry subcontractor, signed a bargaining agreement with the union in 2007, which included language suggesting it was a § 9(a) agreement under the National Labor Relations Act, indicating majority employee support for the union. The company later claimed that its obligations ended when it repudiated the contract in 2016. The union, however, argued that the agreement was a § 9(a) agreement and that the company violated the Act by not providing requested information.An administrative law judge determined that the agreement was a § 9(a) agreement and that Enright Seeding violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to provide the requested information. The judge also concluded that even if the agreement was under § 8(f), the company did not clearly repudiate it. A three-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) affirmed this decision, focusing on the § 9(a) status and not addressing the repudiation issue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the NLRB's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as there was no actual evidence of majority employee support for the union in 2007, only boilerplate contract language. The court emphasized that all evidence must be considered to determine the status of the relationship, and mere contract language is insufficient. The court also rejected the argument that Enright Seeding was barred from disputing the agreement's status due to the six-month limitation period in § 10(b) of the Act.The Eighth Circuit vacated the NLRB's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, without expressing a view on whether Enright Seeding had effectively repudiated the agreement or whether the union was entitled to the requested information under a § 8(f) agreement. View "NLRB v. Enright Seeding, Inc." on Justia Law

Adelina Gabriela Suarez, a nondenominational Christian, was employed by Yakima Valley School, a nursing facility operated by the State of Washington. Suarez requested Saturdays off to observe her Sabbath and additional religious holidays, but her requests were denied due to staffing needs and her probationary status. After refusing to work mandatory overtime shifts and taking an unscheduled leave for a religious event, Suarez was terminated for unreliability.In Yakima County Superior Court, Suarez claimed Yakima Valley failed to accommodate her religious practices and wrongfully terminated her in violation of public policy under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The court granted summary judgment in favor of the State, finding that the accommodations sought by Suarez would cause undue hardship and that her termination was not due to religious discrimination. Suarez's motion for reconsideration was denied.The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the superior court's decision, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Yakima Valley provided reasonable accommodations and whether Suarez was terminated due to her religion. The appellate court applied a "significant difficulty or expense" test from WAC 82-56-020, rather than the "undue hardship" analysis from Hardison.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and clarified that the correct analysis for an "undue hardship" defense under the WLAD is the substantial burdens test from Hardison, as clarified by Groff v. DeJoy. The court held that accommodating Suarez's requests would violate seniority rights under the collective bargaining agreement, constituting an undue hardship. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the superior court's summary judgment, dismissing Suarez's claims. View "Suarez v. State" on Justia Law

Stanford Clacks, an African American truck driver, was employed by Kwik Trip, Inc. and experienced racial harassment from fellow employees. During his training, Clacks was harassed by two trainers, Tom Roerkohl and Brett Nechkash, who used racial epithets and made derogatory remarks. Clacks reported these incidents to his supervisor, Sean Clements, but did not initially specify the racial nature of the harassment. After completing his training, Clacks continued to face sporadic racial harassment, including receiving a racially charged note from Nechkash. Clacks went on voluntary pandemic leave in March 2020 and later reported the harassment to Kwik Trip’s Human Resources department, prompting an investigation that led to the termination of the offending employees. Kwik Trip offered Clacks his job back or a severance package, both of which he declined.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of Kwik Trip on all claims. The court applied the sham-affidavit rule to exclude parts of an affidavit Clacks submitted in opposition to summary judgment, finding it contradicted his earlier deposition testimony. The court found that Clacks did not present sufficient evidence to support his claims of a hostile work environment and retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the district court properly applied the sham-affidavit rule and that Clacks did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims. Specifically, the court found that Kwik Trip took reasonable steps to address the harassment once it was reported and that Clacks did not suffer an adverse employment action as he was offered his job back. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find Kwik Trip liable for a hostile work environment or retaliation. View "Clacks v. Kwik Trip, Incorporated" on Justia Law

The New Jersey Staffing Alliance, the American Staffing Association, and the New Jersey Business and Industry Association sought to enjoin a New Jersey law designed to protect temporary workers. The law, known as the Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights, mandates recordkeeping, disclosure requirements, and state certification procedures for staffing firms. It also imposes joint and several liability on clients hiring temporary workers and requires staffing firms to pay temporary workers wages equivalent to those of permanent employees performing similar work.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the Staffing Associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The court found that the law did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses, as it imposed the same burdens on both in-state and out-of-state firms. The court also rejected the void-for-vagueness claim, reasoning that the law provided sufficient guidance on its requirements. Additionally, the court determined that the law was a reasonable exercise of New Jersey’s police power, as it was rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting temporary workers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit agreed that the Staffing Associations failed to show a likelihood of success on their claims. The court held that the law did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, as it did not favor in-state businesses over out-of-state competitors. The court also found that the law was not unconstitutionally vague, as it provided adequate notice of its requirements. Finally, the court upheld the law as a permissible exercise of state police power, as it was rationally related to the goal of protecting temporary workers. View "New Jersey Staffing Alliance v. Fais" on Justia Law