Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Harvard Maintenance, a janitorial contractor in New York City, employed Carina Cruz as a cleaner. Cruz raised several complaints alleging violations of the collective bargaining agreement, including assignment of certain cleaning tasks and concerns about working conditions. In response to her complaints, Cruz faced threats from supervisors, was suspended following workplace disputes, and ultimately terminated in June 2020. Cruz filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), claiming her suspension and termination were unlawful reprisals for protected union activity.An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the NLRB found that Harvard Maintenance unlawfully threatened, suspended, and fired Cruz in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and ordered remedies including backpay, reimbursement for job search expenses, and compensation for “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms.” The NLRB adopted the ALJ’s findings and order. Harvard Maintenance petitioned for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the findings of coercive statements, unlawful discharge, and the scope of the awarded remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the NLRB’s findings regarding coercive statements and unlawful discharge were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed those parts of the Board’s order. However, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the award of consequential damages for “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” exceeded the NLRB’s statutory authority under the NLRA, which permits only equitable remedies. Therefore, the court denied Harvard Maintenance’s petition for review as to the findings of unlawful conduct, but granted relief and vacated the portion of the order awarding consequential damages. The Board’s application for enforcement was granted except as to the consequential damages remedy. View "Harvard Maintenance v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

A prospective employee, Fuentes, applied for work at Empire Nissan and signed an “Applicant Statement and Agreement” that included a mandatory arbitration provision. The document was printed in an extremely small, blurry font that was nearly unreadable and contained a lengthy, complex paragraph filled with legal jargon and statutory references. Fuentes was given only five minutes to review the entire employment packet, was not offered an opportunity to ask questions, and did not receive a copy. Later, she signed two confidentiality agreements that appeared to allow Empire Nissan to seek judicial remedies, not mentioning arbitration. After working at Empire Nissan for over two years, Fuentes was terminated following a request for extended medical leave and subsequently sued the company for wrongful discharge and related claims.Empire Nissan moved to compel arbitration. The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied the motion, finding the arbitration agreement unconscionable due to its illegibility, complexity, and the lack of a meaningful opportunity for review or negotiation, establishing a high degree of procedural unconscionability and a low to moderate degree of substantive unconscionability. The court also found that the confidentiality agreements appeared to carve out certain claims from arbitration for Empire Nissan. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that “tiny and unreadable print” concerns procedural unconscionability only—not substantive—and, interpreting the agreements as requiring arbitration, found no substantive unconscionability and declined to address procedural unconscionability.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and held that a contract’s format, such as illegibility, is generally irrelevant to substantive unconscionability, which concerns the fairness of the contract’s terms. However, courts must more closely scrutinize the terms of contracts that are difficult to read for unfairness or one-sidedness when there is high procedural unconscionability. The Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its clarified standards. View "Fuentes v. Empire Nissan" on Justia Law

Carl Kleinfeldt was a longtime employee who participated in his employer’s retirement plan. He originally designated his wife, Dená Langdon, as the primary beneficiary and his sisters as contingent beneficiaries. After divorcing Langdon in September 2022, Kleinfeldt sent a fax to his employer’s benefits center requesting that Langdon be removed as beneficiary from his retirement accounts. Although the employer updated Langdon’s status from “spouse” to “ex-spouse,” she remained listed as the primary beneficiary at the time of Kleinfeldt’s death in January 2023.Following Kleinfeldt’s death, the employer planned to distribute the retirement account funds to Langdon. Both Langdon and Kleinfeldt’s estate submitted competing claims to the employer, which denied the estate's claim but allowed an appeal. When conflicting claims persisted, the employer filed an interpleader action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin and deposited the funds with the court. During litigation, the district court determined that Kleinfeldt’s sister, Terry Scholz, also had a potential claim as a surviving contingent beneficiary and joined her estate as a necessary party. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied both and instead granted summary judgment sua sponte to Scholz’s estate, finding that Kleinfeldt had substantially complied with the plan’s requirements to remove Langdon as beneficiary.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that Kleinfeldt did not meet the requirements of substantial compliance because he failed to follow the plan’s specified procedures for changing a beneficiary, which required contacting the benefits center or updating beneficiaries online—not simply sending a fax. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Langdon as the primary beneficiary. View "Packaging Corporation of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon" on Justia Law

Benjamin Zarn, a Forensic Support Specialist employed at a state-run treatment center, challenged workplace Covid-19 protocols implemented by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (MDHS). In 2021, MDHS adopted policies requiring employees who did not telework to provide proof of Covid-19 vaccination or undergo weekly testing. Additionally, vaccinated employees who tested positive for Covid-19 could receive up to seven days of paid administrative leave if they exhausted their sick leave. Zarn objected to the vaccine and testing requirements on religious and moral grounds, citing his Catholic beliefs and concerns about the use of fetal cells in vaccines. Despite his objections, Zarn complied with the testing policy but claimed he did so under duress, fearing job loss. Although Zarn expressed dissatisfaction with the policies to his supervisor, union president, and administrators, he did not formally request a religious accommodation.Zarn filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging religious discrimination under Title VII and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After receiving right-to-sue letters, he sued MDHS in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, also alleging violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Minnesota Refusal of Treatment statute. The district court dismissed the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and then granted summary judgment to MDHS on the federal claims, finding that Zarn failed to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims and did not notify MDHS of a religious conflict or suffer an adverse employment action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Zarn failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding the Covid Pay Policy, did not notify MDHS of a religious conflict as required to establish a prima facie Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim, and that the Covid testing requirement did not violate the ADA because it was job-related and consistent with business necessity. View "Zarn v. Minn. Dept. of Human Services" on Justia Law

Samuel Perez filed a lawsuit in 2022 against By the Rockies, LLC, alleging that during his employment in 2016 and 2017, he and other employees were denied required meal and rest breaks, in violation of Colorado’s Minimum Wage Act. Perez sought recovery for unpaid wages based on these alleged violations. By the Rockies moved to dismiss the claim as untimely, arguing that the applicable statute of limitations was two years, as set forth in the Colorado Wage Claim Act, while Perez contended that the general six-year limitations period for actions to recover a liquidated debt should apply, since the Minimum Wage Act itself does not specify a limitations period.The District Court for Larimer County agreed with By the Rockies and dismissed Perez’s complaint, applying the Wage Claim Act’s two-year statute of limitations. Perez appealed, and a divided panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. The majority held that the six-year limitations period in section 13-80-103.5(1)(a) applied, reasoning that the Wage Claim Act’s limitations period was restricted to claims brought specifically under that Act, not under the Minimum Wage Act. The dissent argued that the Wage Claim Act’s limitations period was more specific and appropriate in light of the overall statutory scheme governing wage claims in Colorado.The Supreme Court of Colorado granted certiorari to resolve which limitations period applies to claims under the Minimum Wage Act. The Court held that the two-year limitations period set forth in the Wage Claim Act governs such claims, reasoning that both Acts are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme addressing unpaid wages and that the Wage Claim Act is more specific to wage disputes than the general limitations provision. The Supreme Court of Colorado reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the district court’s order of dismissal. View "By the Rockies, LLC v. Perez" on Justia Law

The plaintiff brought claims against her former employer alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. After removal to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, some claims were resolved at summary judgment, leaving the federal wage claims for trial. Before trial, the parties participated in a court-ordered mediation before a magistrate judge, during which they reached an oral settlement agreement whose terms were recited on the record. The agreement included payment to the plaintiff, confidentiality, non-defamation, and no-rehire clauses, as well as dismissal of the action with prejudice. Both parties, including the plaintiff and her counsel, confirmed their assent to the agreement.Following the mediation, the defendant prepared written settlement documents and a stipulation of dismissal. However, the plaintiff refused to sign, asserting she felt pressured and that certain terms were ambiguous or not sufficiently definite. The district court reviewed these objections after the defendant moved to enforce the settlement. The court found the agreement enforceable, denied the plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing on alleged undue influence due to lack of factual support, and ordered her to execute the documents. After the plaintiff failed to comply, the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court did not err in enforcing the oral settlement agreement or in denying the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and request for an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court found no genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence or terms of the settlement and affirmed the district court’s judgment, awarding costs and attorney fees to the defendant. View "Maccarone v. Siemens Industry, Inc." on Justia Law

Two former employees of a global toy and game company sought religious exemptions from the company’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Both had worked remotely during the pandemic and requested to continue working remotely due to their sincerely held Christian beliefs, which included objections to vaccines developed or tested using tissue from aborted fetuses and a belief that receiving the vaccine would violate their religious principles. After submitting their accommodation requests, both employees experienced workplace actions they alleged were retaliatory and discriminatory. These included formal investigations and written warnings for alleged prior mask policy violations, exclusion from promotion opportunities, reassignment of roles, dissemination of personal medical information, and changes to established workplace practices. Both resigned, asserting that these actions compelled their departures.The plaintiffs initiated legal action in Rhode Island state court, raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, and the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which granted the employer’s motion to dismiss. The district court determined that the plaintiffs’ objections to vaccination were not based on religion, characterizing their beliefs as moral rather than religious, and held that the complaint failed to allege sufficiently adverse employment actions or a causal connection between the plaintiffs’ accommodation requests and any adverse action.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that their refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine was based on bona fide religious beliefs, as recognized in recent circuit precedent. The court concluded that the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded plausible claims of retaliation and religious discrimination under federal and state law. Accordingly, the First Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "DeAngelis v. Hasbro, Inc." on Justia Law

A female custodian employed by a public university filed a Title IX complaint alleging physical assault and a pattern of sexual harassment by a male co-worker, both of whom were members of the same union. The university, which receives federal funding, initiated a Title IX grievance process compliant with 2020 federal Title IX Regulations. After an investigation and hearing in which both parties participated, university decision-makers found the accused violated university policy and determined there was just cause for his termination. The accused’s appeal within the Title IX process was unsuccessful, and he was terminated.The union representing the accused employee filed a grievance under its 2019 collective negotiation agreement (CNA) with the university, seeking arbitration to determine whether the termination was for just cause. The university denied the grievance, arguing that the federal Title IX Regulations preempted the CNA’s grievance procedure. The union sought arbitration through the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), which denied the university’s request to restrain arbitration and held, applying state preemption law, that the Title IX Regulations did not preempt arbitration. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, finding no conflict precluding the union’s grievance procedure.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts. The Court held that the CNA’s grievance procedure is preempted by the 2020 federal Title IX Regulations because those regulations require that any grievance or appeal process must apply equally to both complainant and respondent. The CNA’s arbitration process excluded the alleged victim from participation, granting rights only to the accused. The Court concluded that this inequality creates a direct conflict with federal law, which therefore preempts the CNA’s arbitration provision in this context. The decision is limited to this particular CNA and does not preempt all union grievance procedures. View "In the Matter of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey v. AFSCME Local 888" on Justia Law

A substitute teacher in a large Maryland public school system challenged the school board’s policy requiring all staff, including substitutes, to affirm that they would refer to students by their preferred pronouns and not disclose a student’s gender identity to parents without the student’s consent. The teacher, citing her sincerely held religious beliefs, refused to sign the affirmation and requested a religious accommodation, which was ultimately denied. As a result, she was not permitted to substitute teach in the following school years.She brought claims in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the school board, asserting violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act related to religious accommodation, and First Amendment violations of her rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. She sought damages, declaratory relief, and a preliminary injunction. The district court dismissed her First Amendment claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, finding the policy to be neutral and generally applicable, thus subject to rational basis review, and rationally related to legitimate government interests, including compliance with Title IX and student safety. The court concluded that the speech at issue was part of her official duties as a teacher and thus not protected by the First Amendment. The court denied a preliminary injunction, finding no likelihood of success on the merits for the constitutional claims and no irreparable harm for the Title VII claim, which was allowed to proceed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the First Amendment claims and denial of a preliminary injunction. The Fourth Circuit held that the policy was neutral and generally applicable, survived rational basis review, and the compelled speech fell within the teacher’s official duties. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief on her constitutional claims. View "Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools" on Justia Law

Rodney Phath applied for a truck driving position with Central Transport LLC. He had the necessary qualifications and disclosed during the hiring process that he had a fifteen-year-old armed robbery conviction, for which he had served six years in prison. Upon learning of this conviction, Central Transport immediately decided not to hire him. Phath then filed a lawsuit, alleging that Central Transport violated a Pennsylvania statute that restricts how employers may use criminal history information in employment decisions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Phath’s claim. The court reasoned that the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act did not apply in this instance because Central Transport had learned of Phath’s conviction directly from him, rather than from a state agency’s records.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the matter de novo. The Third Circuit held that the Act’s protections are triggered whenever an employer receives information that is part of an applicant’s criminal history record information file, regardless of the source of that information. The court concluded that nothing in the statute requires the information to come specifically from a state agency’s file. Thus, by learning of Phath’s conviction—even through his own disclosure—Central Transport was subject to the Act’s provisions, including restrictions on how it may use that information and requirements for notifying the applicant if rejected on that basis.As a result, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the Act applies even when an applicant self-discloses criminal history information. View "Phath v. Central Transport LLC" on Justia Law