Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

A woman of Syrian descent, who worked as a computer-assisted design drafter at an architecture and engineering firm, was terminated from her job and subsequently sued her former employer. She alleged discrimination based on race and national origin, hostile work environment, retaliation, breach of contract, and a Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The core of her complaint was that she was denied promotions and demoted due to her race, harassed by another employee due to her Arab background, and retaliated against after reporting discrimination, culminating in her termination.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially dismissed all of her claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of most claims but allowed a retaliatory termination claim to proceed. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the employer on that claim, finding insufficient evidence of pretext for retaliation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Following this, the district court imposed sanctions on the plaintiff’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, reasoning that counsel should have known after discovery that the claim lacked a basis and unreasonably multiplied proceedings by opposing summary judgment and appealing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the imposition of sanctions. It held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the opposition to summary judgment was so baseless as to warrant sanctions. The appellate court concluded that counsel had at least two non-frivolous arguments for opposing summary judgment, including shifting reasons for termination and deviations from policy, making sanctions inappropriate under § 1927. The Fourth Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s judgment imposing sanctions. View "Ali v. BC Architects Engineers, PLC" on Justia Law

David Christianson was employed during the 2023-24 school year as a teacher at Grand Forks Red River High School, holding both a standard teaching contract and two additional “director contracts” for Pep Band Director and Music-Instrumental Head Director. After two pranks occurred under his supervision at graduation events, Christianson was reassigned to a different school and his director contracts were not renewed. He pursued a grievance with the School District, culminating in a formal hearing and a School Board denial of his appeal. The School Board subsequently issued a written decision two days after the contractual deadline, prompting Christianson to formally object.The case was reviewed by the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The School District argued Christianson was required to arbitrate his grievance before pursuing litigation, while Christianson claimed the School District failed to follow mandatory nonrenewal procedures. The district court found that the School District had waived its right to enforce arbitration by not complying with contractual notice requirements and determined that Christianson’s director contracts were extracurricular, not curricular. Therefore, statutory nonrenewal procedures did not apply. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the School District.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the case de novo. The Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the School District’s failure to timely provide written notice constituted a waiver of its right to require arbitration. The Court further held that Christianson’s director contracts were extracurricular and not subject to teacher contract nonrenewal protections under North Dakota law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Christianson v. Grand Forks Public School District" on Justia Law

An employee at a grocery store in Houston, Texas, advocated repeatedly for improved health and safety protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic. She raised concerns about management’s communication regarding workplace exposure incidents, pressed for stricter mask enforcement, and continued to discuss safety matters with coworkers and management as pandemic-related precautions were rolled back. Over time, management’s attitude toward her grew less supportive and more hostile, especially after she filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and encouraged coworkers to participate in the investigation. Following her protected activities, the employee received a written warning, negative performance review, suspension, and ultimately was terminated.The case was first reviewed by an administrative law judge (ALJ) for the NLRB after the employee filed complaints alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Section 8(a)(1), 8(a)(4), and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. After a three-day hearing, the ALJ found that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by issuing the written warning and violated Sections 8(a)(4) and 8(a)(1) by suspending and firing her for protected concerted activity. The ALJ ordered reinstatement, removal of unlawful discipline from her record, and compensation for lost earnings and other harms. Both parties filed exceptions, and the Board ultimately affirmed the ALJ’s findings and modified the remedy to include broader make-whole relief, referencing the Thryv, Inc. standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the NLRB’s order. Applying a deferential standard to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions, it found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that the employer acted with unlawful animus and failed to prove it would have disciplined the employee absent her protected conduct. The court denied the employer’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement, holding that the employer violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(4) of the Act, and declined to review the Thryv remedy for lack of jurisdiction. View "Trader Joe's Company v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

In this case, a school bus company’s employees voted in 2020 to change their union representation, shifting from a Teamsters local to an Amalgamated Transit Workers local. As a result, the company was required under federal law to withdraw from the multiemployer pension plan affiliated with the old union and begin contributing to a new plan aligned with the new union. This withdrawal triggered several obligations under ERISA, including the company’s duty to pay “withdrawal liability” to the old plan and the old plan’s obligation to transfer certain assets and liabilities to the new plan relating to the employees who switched unions.After the old pension fund assessed withdrawal liability of approximately $1.8 million, the company argued that, under 29 U.S.C. § 1415(c), this liability should be reduced by the difference between the liabilities and assets transferred to the new plan. The old plan disagreed, interpreting the statute differently and contending that no reduction should occur. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the company, holding that the statute required a $1.8 million reduction in withdrawal liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s interpretation of the statute de novo. The Second Circuit found that the phrase “unfunded vested benefits” in Section 1415(c) is ambiguous, but, after examining the statute’s structure and purpose, concluded that the District Court’s interpretation was correct. The court held that “unfunded vested benefits allocable to the employer” under Section 1415(c) refers to the entire amount of liabilities transferred to the new plan, not reduced by transferred assets. As a result, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, approving the $1.8 million withdrawal liability reduction and dismissing the company’s cross-appeal as moot. View "Mar-Can Transp. Co. v. Loc. 854 Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Two female employees, both recreation therapists with bachelor’s degrees and relevant experience, applied for a mid-level management position at a state hospital alongside three other internal candidates. A male coworker, who lacked formal education and prior experience in recreation therapy, was ultimately promoted to the position after an interview process. The female applicants felt humiliated by the decision, believing they were more qualified, and subsequently filed sex discrimination complaints with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry’s Human Rights Bureau.After an evidentiary hearing, a Hearing Officer found that while the women established prima facie cases of sex discrimination, they failed to show the hospital’s stated reason—Martin’s superior interview performance—was a pretext for discrimination. The Montana Human Rights Commission affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decision, finding it was supported by substantial evidence. The women then sought judicial review in the Second Judicial District Court, Butte-Silver Bow County. The District Court reversed the Human Rights Commission, determining several factual findings were clearly erroneous and awarding damages and attorney fees to the plaintiffs.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court had overstepped its authority under the Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) by substituting its own judgment for that of the agency. The Supreme Court held that substantial evidence supported the Hearing Officer’s findings, and the District Court erred by reweighing evidence and overturning those findings based simply on conflicting evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s judgment, including the award of damages and attorney fees, and reinstated the Human Rights Commission’s final agency decision, ruling in favor of the hospital. View "Difolco v. Montana State Hospital" on Justia Law

Three employees at different Illinois schools declined to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, citing religious beliefs, after the Illinois Governor issued an Executive Order requiring school employees to either vaccinate or undergo weekly testing. The schools, in compliance with the Executive Order and state agency guidance, offered weekly testing as an accommodation for those claiming a religious exemption to vaccination. The employees refused the testing, asserting that submitting to it violated their moral consciences, and were either placed on unpaid leave or terminated.The employees filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Emergency Use Authorization Act, and the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. Each employer moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court dismissed the Title VII claim, finding that the plaintiffs failed to identify a religious belief that was violated by the testing requirement. The court also dismissed the Emergency Use Authorization Act claim, holding there was no private right of action, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. The employees appealed only the dismissal of their Title VII claim and, for the first time on appeal, raised a claim under the Illinois Public Health Code.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Title VII because they did not allege a religious objection to testing; their objections were based on personal moral conscience, not religious belief. The court further held that Title VII does not require an employer to accommodate religious beliefs when doing so would cause the employer to violate the law. The court also found that any argument under the Illinois Public Health Code was waived. View "Bowlin v. Board of Directors, Judah Christian School" on Justia Law

At a psychiatric hospital, employees were exposed to violent behavior from disturbed patients. Following a tip, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigated and cited the hospital for failing to implement measures that could have protected staff from workplace violence. These measures included reconfiguring nurses’ stations, providing communication devices, fully implementing existing safety programs, maintaining adequate staffing, securing patient belongings, hiring specialized security staff, and investigating each incident of workplace violence. The hospital did not contest the necessity of some measures but challenged the citation overall.An administrative law judge with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission conducted a hearing, upheld the citation, and imposed a fine. The judge’s decision became the final decision of the Review Commission when it declined further review. The hospital then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for judicial review, arguing that another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, had exclusive authority over hospital safety, that the Secretary of Labor should have deferred to other regulatory bodies, and that the Secretary’s methods and notice were insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the Secretary of Labor had the authority to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause in this context, as the cited agency did not actually regulate employee safety regarding workplace violence. The court found that the Secretary provided fair notice, acted within statutory authority, and permissibly used adjudication rather than rulemaking. The court also concluded that the abatement measures were feasible, supported by substantial evidence, and that the imposed sanctions for failure to preserve video evidence were appropriate. The Tenth Circuit denied the hospital’s petition for review, upholding the citation and penalty. View "Cedar Springs Hospital v. Occupational Health and Safety" on Justia Law

A management company and the owner of a psychiatric hospital were both penalized after the hospital failed to implement sufficient safety measures to protect employees from workplace violence. The central issue was whether the management company could be held liable under workplace safety laws, specifically whether its relationship with the hospital owner meant it was subject to the same penalties for safety violations.Previously, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission evaluated whether the management company was an “employer” for relevant employees by applying a three-part factual test. This test asked whether there was a shared worksite, whether the companies’ operations (particularly regarding safety and health) were integrated, and whether the companies shared responsibility through common management, supervision, or ownership. The Commission answered all three questions affirmatively, finding the management company liable as an employer for some hospital employees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case, examining whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s findings. The court found that the hospital was a worksite for the management company because its employees worked there and were exposed to workplace hazards. The companies’ operations were sufficiently integrated on safety matters, evidenced by the management company’s oversight and involvement in safety training and policy enforcement. Finally, both companies were wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent corporation, satisfying the requirement for shared ownership.The Tenth Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s findings and denied the management company’s petition for review. The court’s holding was that, under the agreed-upon three-part test, the management company was properly held liable as an employer for workplace safety violations at the hospital and was subject to the associated penalties. View "UHS of Delaware v. Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission" on Justia Law

An employee of Indiana University, who began as an intern and was promoted to an online instructional designer, was terminated after sending a series of emails to senior university officials. These emails escalated an internal funding issue that had already been resolved by her supervisor and included accusations of mismanagement against her supervisors. Her conduct was considered insubordinate and a breach of professional protocol. The employee, who had taken multiple periods of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and requested accommodations for mental-health conditions, alleged that her termination was in retaliation for exercising her statutory rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment to the university and individual defendants on all claims, concluding that the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find in the employee’s favor. The plaintiff appealed but pressed only her retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the FMLA, arguing that the district court applied the wrong causation standard and that the evidence should allow her claims to proceed to trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and determined that, although the district court applied an incorrect “sole” causation standard rather than the proper “but-for” standard for retaliation claims, the outcome remained the same under the correct law. The appellate court held that no reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff’s protected activity caused her termination. The court found that the termination was based on unprofessional conduct, not on her FMLA leave or requests for accommodation. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. View "Shirk v. Trustees of Indiana University" on Justia Law

An employee at a construction company alleged that he faced repeated harassment at work after revealing that he was bisexual. According to his account, coworkers and a supervisor directed homophobic slurs and derogatory comments at him over several months. The employee reported the harassment to a manager on two occasions, initially without naming the harassers, and later with more details. Eventually, after a particularly hostile exchange, he formally complained to the company’s human resources department, which initiated an investigation. The HR manager interviewed the employee and nine other workers, none of whom corroborated his claims. Nonetheless, the company issued a written warning to the supervisor for inappropriate language, required all employees to review the antidiscrimination policy, and allowed the employee to transfer worksites and take medical leave.After the employee took extended medical leave, the company offered him several alternative work assignments, which he either declined or raised objections to. Ultimately, the company considered his refusals as a voluntary resignation and terminated his employment. The employee sued, alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII and Michigan law.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to the employer on both claims. It found the company’s actions in response to the harassment allegations were prompt and appropriate, and that the employee failed to show that the termination was pretext for retaliation. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the employer was not liable for coworker harassment because it took reasonable steps to investigate and address the allegations, and that the employee did not present sufficient evidence of pretext regarding his termination. View "Hamm v. Pullman SST, Inc." on Justia Law