Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Adrianne Cotton filed a charge of discrimination against the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC), alleging retaliation for protected activity when her position was eliminated. Cotton had been employed by DOC since 2011 and held the position of government relations director. She reported concerns about the conduct of DOC Director Reginald Michael in 2017, which led to an investigation. Subsequently, an organizational assessment recommended eliminating Cotton's position, among others, due to budgetary and structural issues.The case was first reviewed by Hearing Officer Holien, who held a contested case hearing and found that DOC had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for eliminating Cotton's position and did not retaliate against her. Cotton appealed to the Human Rights Commission, which rejected Holien's conclusions of law, citing the temporal proximity between Cotton's protected activity and the adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of retaliation. The Commission did not find that Holien's findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence.The case was then reviewed by the District Court of the First Judicial District, which found that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the hearing officer. The District Court reversed the Commission's order and reinstated Holien's decision as the final agency decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that the Commission had abused its discretion by not adhering to the proper standard of review and by reweighing evidence that supported Holien's findings. The Supreme Court concluded that the District Court did not err in reinstating Holien's findings as the final agency decision, as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Cotton v. Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case involves Patricia A. Heilman, the surviving spouse of Arthur J. Heilman, who died from an industrial accident. Patricia Heilman sought scheduled-loss compensation under Ohio law, claiming her husband had lost the use of both arms, both legs, sight in both eyes, and hearing in both ears before his death. The Industrial Commission of Ohio denied her request based on a nonexamining physician's report, which did not fully accept the findings of the examining physicians.The Tenth District Court of Appeals reviewed the case and granted a limited writ of mandamus. The court ordered the Industrial Commission to vacate its denial of scheduled-loss compensation and to re-evaluate whether Patricia Heilman had established her claims under the relevant statute. The court found that the Commission had improperly relied on the nonexamining physician's report, which did not comply with the requirements set forth in Wallace v. Industrial Commission.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Tenth District's judgment. The court held that the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by relying solely on the nonexamining physician's report, which failed to accept the objective findings of the examining physicians. The Supreme Court clarified that while the Commission could not base its decision solely on the nonexamining physician's report, it could use the report as guidance in evaluating the remaining medical evidence. The court ordered the Commission to vacate its previous order and issue a new decision based on a proper evaluation of the evidence. View "State ex rel. Heilman v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

Capstone Logistics, LLC, a company providing labor to other businesses, began supplying auditors to Associated Wholesale Grocers in 2019. The auditors, including Joyce Henson, were responsible for checking groceries and ensuring order accuracy. Henson, hired as lead auditor, raised concerns about safety, training, and pay on behalf of the auditors. She also contacted Donny Rouse, a major customer, about her pay. After a meeting with Capstone officials, Henson sent a LinkedIn message to Rouse about the auditors' pay issues. Following a brief interaction with Associated Wholesale Grocers' Director Chris Griffin, Henson was terminated by Capstone's Vice President Tim Casey.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Capstone, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) for discharging Henson due to her protected concerted activities. An administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the allegations, finding no sufficient causal connection between Henson's protected activities and her termination. The ALJ concluded that Henson's termination was more likely due to her efforts to secure better compensation for herself.The NLRB reversed the ALJ's decision, finding that Henson was discharged for engaging in protected concerted activity by sending the LinkedIn message to Rouse and because Capstone believed she had engaged in such activity during her conversation with Griffin. Capstone petitioned for review, and the NLRB cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found insufficient evidence to support the NLRB's finding that Capstone discharged Henson for sending the LinkedIn message. However, the court affirmed the NLRB's alternative determination that Capstone violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by discharging Henson because it believed she had engaged in protected concerted activity. The court denied Capstone's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application to enforce its order. View "Capstone Logistics v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Antonio Juarez, Jose Hinojosa, Jose Espinosa, and Maria Morfin filed a lawsuit against the San Bernardino City Unified School District following an incident involving Officer Alejandro Brown, a District employee. In February 2018, Juarez found a cell phone and later, Officer Brown, tracking his phone, confronted the plaintiffs, identifying himself as a District police officer. Brown, armed and displaying his badge, demanded compliance, struck Juarez with his firearm, and threatened the others. Brown later pled guilty to assault and battery and threatening the plaintiffs under color of law.The Superior Court of Riverside County sustained the District’s demurrer to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court found the complaint insufficient to establish that Officer Brown was acting within the scope of his employment with the District and dismissed the claims of negligence, battery, assault, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, false arrest and imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Bane Act.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed and remanded the case. The appellate court held that the scope of employment is a factual issue that cannot be resolved as a matter of law on demurrer. The court found that Officer Brown’s off-duty misconduct, while investigating a suspected theft and wielding his authority as a peace officer, could be regarded as an outgrowth of his employment. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer, enter a new order overruling the demurrer, and conduct further proceedings. The appellate court also rejected the District’s arguments regarding the Bane Act and found the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. View "Juarez v. San Bernardino City Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Nattalia Castell was employed as a senior accountant for Money Metals Exchange, LLC. She was discharged after allegedly mishandling an Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL) notice regarding her boyfriend's unemployment benefits application. Castell applied for unemployment benefits, but an IDOL appeals examiner excluded her boyfriend from testifying, denied her request to reopen the hearing to read a statement, and found that she was terminated for employment-related misconduct, making her ineligible for benefits.Castell appealed to the Idaho Industrial Commission, which denied her request to reopen the hearing and affirmed the appeals examiner's decision. The Commission found that Castell's actions constituted misconduct, as she failed to disclose a conflict of interest and mishandled the notice. Castell then appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Commission's decision. The Court held that the appeals examiner did not err in excluding the boyfriend's testimony or in denying Castell's request to reopen the hearing. The Court also found that the Commission's determination that Castell was discharged for employment-related misconduct was supported by substantial and competent evidence. The Court concluded that Castell's actions disregarded a standard of behavior that Money Metals had a right to expect from its employees, and her claim of retaliation was not supported by evidence. View "Castell v. IDOL" on Justia Law

In 2013, Dr. Johnathan Slone began working as a general surgeon at El Centro Regional Medical Center (Center) on a locum tenens basis. Despite not being board-certified, he was granted full staff privileges in January 2015. In April 2016, Slone became an employee of the Imperial Valley MultiSpecialty Medical Group (IVMSMG) and later entered into a contract with Community Care IPA (IPA) to provide healthcare administrative services. In July 2017, Slone was informed by the Center that he had until July 2020 to become board-certified. Subsequently, he resigned from IVMSMG and began working full-time for IPA. In September 2017, the Center suspended his privileges for failing to complete medical records, and by March 2018, his suspension was deemed a voluntary resignation.Slone filed a fourth amended complaint in February 2021, alleging that the Center retaliated against him in violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5 after he reported concerns about patient care. The case proceeded to a bench trial solely on this cause of action. The Superior Court of Imperial County found in favor of the Center, concluding that Slone did not suffer retaliation and had not proven any economic or noneconomic damages.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that Slone did not carry his burden on appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings that the Center did not retaliate against Slone for his complaints about patient care. The court also upheld the trial court's findings that Slone voluntarily resigned from his surgical practice to pursue a career as a medical administrator and did not suffer any economic or noneconomic damages as a result of the alleged retaliation. View "Slone v. El Centro Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

Cristin Dent filed a Title VII racial discrimination claim against her former employer, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Dent received a notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on April 5, 2023, giving her until July 5, 2023, to file her complaint. Her attorney attempted to file the complaint on July 4, 2023, but failed to complete the online submission process. The complaint was ultimately filed on July 10, 2023, five days late. Dent requested that the district court deem her complaint timely by equitably tolling the statutory period for filing.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted Charles Schwab’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Dent’s complaint was time-barred. The court denied Dent’s request for equitable tolling, concluding that her attorney’s failure to follow the court’s instructions and local rules on submitting complaints did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting such relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, agreeing that equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy and that Dent’s attorney’s mistake was merely “garden variety” neglect, not an extraordinary circumstance. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for equitable tolling and in granting the motion to dismiss. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Dent v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Mark Johnson sued the Clarksdale Public Utilities Authority (CPU) and its members in federal district court, alleging he was fired for reporting inefficiency and incompetence to the state auditor. His initial complaint asserted retaliation under the Mississippi Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA), later amended to include First Amendment retaliation and breach of contract. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted, holding that Johnson failed to comply with the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) notice requirements and that the MWPA claim was barred by the MTCA’s one-year statute of limitations. The court also found Johnson’s First Amendment and breach-of-contract claims time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether the MTCA’s procedural requirements apply to MWPA claims. The defendants argued that the MTCA’s broad application and limited immunity waiver necessitate compliance with its procedural requirements for MWPA claims. Johnson countered that the MWPA provides a separate right to monetary relief and should not be subject to the MTCA’s requirements.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the certified question from the Fifth Circuit. The court concluded that the MWPA is a remedial statute separate from the MTCA. The MWPA does not prescribe a statute of limitations or notice requirement, and the reference to the MTCA’s damages cap does not incorporate its procedural requirements. Therefore, the court held that MWPA claims are not subject to the MTCA’s statute of limitations and notice requirements. The certified question was answered accordingly. View "Johnson v. Miller" on Justia Law

Amanda Jackson, a healthcare worker, filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Methodist Health Services, after being placed on unpaid leave and subsequently discharged for refusing to be vaccinated for Covid-19 or undergo weekly testing. Jackson claimed that Methodist discriminated against her based on her religion, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by not accommodating her religious objections to the vaccine.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed Jackson's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that Methodist had granted Jackson a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement, conditioned on her compliance with weekly Covid-19 testing, as mandated by an executive order from Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. Jackson refused to comply with the testing requirement, leading to her unpaid leave and discharge. The court concluded that Methodist had reasonably accommodated Jackson's religious beliefs by granting the exemption and that the testing requirement did not burden her religious practices.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that Methodist had reasonably accommodated Jackson's religious beliefs by exempting her from the vaccine mandate and requiring weekly testing, which was consistent with the governor's executive order. The court also rejected Jackson's claim under the Illinois Department of Public Health Act, finding that Methodist, as a private employer, was not exercising powers granted to the Department and was acting within its authority to set workplace safety rules. The court concluded that Jackson failed to state a claim for relief under both Title VII and the Illinois Department of Public Health Act. View "Jackson v. Methodist Health Services Corporation" on Justia Law

The case involves the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) challenging the County of Los Angeles and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) over the implementation of Penal Code sections 13670 and 13510.8. These sections, effective January 1, 2022, mandate law enforcement agencies to prohibit participation in law enforcement gangs and cooperate with investigations into such gangs. The OIG sent letters to 35 deputies, directing them to participate in interviews about their knowledge of and involvement in law enforcement gangs, and to display and provide photographs of gang-associated tattoos.The Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (ERCOM) had previously ruled that the County violated the Employee Relations Ordinance (ERO) by not negotiating the effects of a new ordinance with ALADS. ALADS filed an unfair labor practice claim with ERCOM and sought injunctive relief from the trial court to enjoin the OIG from proceeding with the interviews without first meeting and conferring with ALADS under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and the ERO.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the interview directive triggered the duty to meet and confer with ALADS under the MMBA. The court found that the interviews had significant and adverse effects on working conditions, particularly concerning potential disciplinary actions, and that the County failed to demonstrate a compelling need for immediate investigation without prior negotiation.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court's order. The appellate court agreed that the OIG's decision to conduct interviews was a managerial decision but that the effects of this decision, including potential discipline and the manner of implementation, were subject to bargaining under the MMBA. The court found no error in the trial court's balancing of the interim harm, noting the lack of evidence suggesting that effects bargaining could not be performed expeditiously. View "Assn. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of L.A." on Justia Law