Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

American Backflow & Fire Prevention, Inc. employs plumbers who voted to unionize in June 2021. Following allegations by the union of unfair labor practices—including encouraging decertification efforts, refusing to bargain, and failing to provide requested information—the company and the union entered into a settlement agreement in April 2022. Under this agreement, American Backflow was required to bargain in good faith with the union and acknowledged that if it breached the agreement without curing the breach, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) could seek a default judgment, resulting in the admission of all allegations in a related complaint.In March 2023, after holding one bargaining session, American Backflow canceled a subsequent session and withdrew recognition of the union, citing evidence that the union no longer had majority support. The NLRB’s Regional Director notified American Backflow that this action breached the settlement. After the company failed to cure the breach, the Regional Director filed two complaints with the NLRB, one alleging unfair labor practices and another seeking default judgment for breach of the settlement. The company responded by generally denying wrongdoing but did not substantively address the basis for withdrawing recognition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the NLRB’s decision to grant default judgment, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that American Backflow breached the settlement and failed to present a material issue of fact. The court also held that the company had waived statutory and due process arguments by not raising them before the Board. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board’s application to enforce its order requiring the company to bargain in good faith with the union. View "NLRB v American Backflow & Fire Prevention, Inc." on Justia Law

Gina Latture, a Black woman, was hired in January 2021 as Director of Sales and Marketing by Priority Life Care, LLC (PLC) to prepare a new assisted living facility in Washington, D.C. for its opening. She reported directly to the Executive Director and worked alongside other staff, most of whom were white. Latture alleged that during her tenure, she was subjected to racially derogatory comments by coworkers and supervisors. Despite objections to at least one comment, she did not formally report most incidents, fearing retaliation. After the facility opened with low occupancy, Latture’s job performance was scrutinized, and she was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Following an altercation with supervisors regarding her duties, she was terminated for insubordination and unprofessionalism in August 2021. Afterward, an offer of employment from another facility was rescinded, which Latture attributed to negative comments from PLC representatives.Latture filed suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, bringing common law claims for wrongful termination and tortious interference with business relations, as well as Title VII claims for discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. PLC removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which dismissed the common law claims and granted summary judgment to PLC on the Title VII claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s rulings. It held that Latture failed to plead sufficient facts to support her common law claims, specifically lacking the required specificity for the wrongful termination and tortious interference claims. The appellate court also determined that PLC was entitled to summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims, as Latture did not provide sufficient evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory intent. The hostile work environment claim was affirmed as untimely. View "Latture v. Priority Life Care, LLC" on Justia Law

Several Starbucks stores in Buffalo, New York, were the site of intense union organizing activity between August 2021 and July 2022, led by Workers United. After the Union launched its campaign, Starbucks responded with a series of actions: dispatching senior executives and support managers to Buffalo, implementing fast-tracked renovations, soliciting employee grievances, offering benefits and promotions, strictly enforcing workplace policies, and terminating several employees, many of whom were union supporters. The Union won certification at eight stores but lost the vote at the Camp Road location, leading to allegations that Starbucks’s conduct affected the fairness of the election.The National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel investigated, resulting in consolidated complaints. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Starbucks violated sections 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and sustained the Union’s objections to the Camp Road election. The NLRB issued an extensive order adopting the ALJ’s findings, concluding that Starbucks engaged in unlawful surveillance, coercive interrogation, solicited grievances, promised and granted benefits, threatened employees, changed policies and fired employees without bargaining, closed the Galleria kiosk discriminatorily, and disciplined union supporters. Remedies included a bargaining order at Camp Road, reopening the Galleria kiosk, compensating employees for pecuniary harm, and requiring a public notice reading.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the NLRB’s order. Applying a deferential standard to the Board’s factual findings and reviewing legal conclusions de novo, the Fifth Circuit denied enforcement as to one finding of unlawful surveillance, the sole findings of unlawful interrogation and coercive threats, remanding those portions. It granted enforcement for the Board’s findings under sections 8(a)(3), (4), and (5). The court denied enforcement of the consequential damages remedy and reopening the Galleria kiosk, but enforced the bargaining order at Camp Road and the public notice-reading requirement. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

In 2022, a Starbucks store in Wichita, Kansas, was the site of unionization discussions. The store manager, Carmella Neri, and assistant manager, Lauren Jacobs, made various statements to employees about union organizing, benefit changes, store hour reductions, and hiring practices. Employees testified that Neri referenced union activity during routine performance meetings, specifically suggesting that certain benefits might not be guaranteed if employees chose to unionize. Jacobs explained to an employee that the hiring portal was closed due to difficulties in discussing union matters with prospective hires. Additionally, Neri responded to an inquiry about reduced store hours by attributing the change to union-related pressures.After a failed union election, the union filed charges against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB’s General Counsel issued a complaint alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including threats of loss of benefits, creating an impression of surveillance, and linking adverse employment actions to union activity. An administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing and found Starbucks in violation on all claims. Starbucks challenged these findings before the NLRB, which largely adopted the ALJ’s conclusions but issued a narrower remedy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court granted enforcement of the NLRB’s decision as to the finding that Neri’s statements to employee Cuellar-Serafini about loss of benefits constituted an unlawful threat of reprisal. However, the Fifth Circuit denied enforcement regarding the findings on store hours reductions, hiring portal closure, and impression of surveillance, holding that these determinations were not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, only the threat of loss of benefits claim was upheld. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A former applicant for the position of police commissioner in St. Louis alleged that after a competitive selection process, he and another white male candidate were certified as the only eligible finalists. The mayor publicly stated she did not want to select either finalist because both were white males, emphasizing the city’s diversity. The city then abandoned the original selection process, reopened the search with lower minimum qualifications, and ultimately hired a different white male candidate after two Black finalists withdrew. The plaintiff, who was ranked first and asserted he was entitled to the position under civil service rules, claimed the process was reopened solely due to the race of the finalists.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to state a claim and qualified immunity. The court found that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged an adverse employment action and a violation of clearly established equal protection rights, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, which prohibits invalidating a selection process based on race. The defendants argued that the plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action since a white male was ultimately selected and asserted that the plaintiff had no entitlement to the promotion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed only the denial of qualified immunity. The appellate court held that, accepting the allegations as true, the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendants’ actions violated the plaintiff’s clearly established right to equal protection by reopening the hiring process for racial reasons and denying him promotion. The court also found the complaint adequately alleged personal involvement by each defendant. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying qualified immunity and left the underlying claims to be resolved in further proceedings. View "Sack v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law

The case arose after the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency, facing a large budget shortfall in 2010, laid off 115 employees as part of a reduction in force. This included eliminating two support positions and creating a new, hybrid role with fewer positions and different qualification requirements. The agency also terminated additional employees across various divisions based on management assessments. A group of former employees, disproportionately Black, filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that these employment practices had a disparate racial impact in violation of Title VII and D.C. law.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially granted summary judgment to the District, finding that the plaintiffs failed to identify specific employment practices as required for a disparate impact claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit revived the disparate impact claims, concluding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently challenged two discrete employment practices. On remand, the district court found the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of disparate impact but again granted summary judgment to the District. The court found the agency’s employment practices were consistent with business necessity and that the plaintiffs failed to propose an adequate alternative practice with less disparate impact.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that, under Title VII, an employer satisfies the business necessity defense if the challenged employment practice reasonably fits with its legitimate interests. Applying this standard, the court found both disputed practices fit legitimate governmental interests in reducing costs while maintaining services. Because the plaintiffs did not identify an equally effective alternative practice with less disparate impact, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the District. View "Davis v. DC" on Justia Law

A healthcare administrator at a Mississippi correctional facility, who had served in that role for many years, was employed by a new contractor after it obtained the healthcare services contract for the facility. The administrator became concerned that a prison physician was providing inadequate care and might be impaired by drugs, reporting these concerns to her employer and recommending the physician’s termination. Despite those reports, the physician remained employed after a brief administrative leave. Later, the administrator was notified her employment would be terminated because the employer required all administrators to be registered nurses, and she did not meet that requirement.After her termination, the administrator filed suit in the Sunflower County Circuit Court, alleging wrongful termination and tortious interference. She argued her firing was due to her refusal to participate in denying adequate medical care and her repeated reports about the physician’s performance and possible drug use. The employer denied these allegations, and moved for summary judgment, asserting that she was an at-will employee and had not reported conduct subject to criminal penalties as required under the public-policy exceptions recognized in McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., Inc. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding that her claims did not implicate criminal conduct and thus did not fall within McArn’s exceptions.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo. It held that the administrator failed to show a genuine issue of material fact that she was discharged for refusal to participate in or for reporting criminal conduct, as required under McArn. The Court further clarified that Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp. did not expand McArn beyond criminal conduct. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. View "Knighten v. VitalCore Health Strategies, LLC" on Justia Law

Several lieutenants and captains employed by the Harris County Sheriff’s Office alleged that Harris County violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to properly pay them overtime. These employees, who worked in either law enforcement or the county jail system, claimed that their primary duties were frontline law enforcement or correctional work. Harris County, however, argued that these plaintiffs were exempt from overtime under the FLSA’s administrative and executive exemptions, as their main responsibilities involved management and administrative oversight rather than frontline duties.The litigation began in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment in part for Harris County, finding that all captains and criminal justice lieutenants were administratively exempt, but concluded there were factual disputes regarding whether law enforcement patrol and investigative lieutenants were exempt. Those claims proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found that the remaining lieutenants were also exempt as administrative and executive employees. The plaintiffs then moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, raising arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence, alleged errors in the jury charge, and an asserted inconsistency in the verdict. The magistrate judge denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the plaintiffs’ claims. The court held that Harris County met its burden of proving that all plaintiffs were paid on a salary basis and that the criminal justice lieutenants qualified for the administrative exemption. The panel further found no error in the jury instructions or in allowing the jury to find both exemptions applied. The court also ruled that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial. Thus, the judgment in favor of Harris County was affirmed. View "Moreau v. Harris County" on Justia Law

Israel Bo Sword worked as a heavy equipment operator for VNS Federal Services, LLC at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio, where he and co-workers were represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18. VNS was bound by the General Presidents’ Project Maintenance Agreement (GPPMA) in its dealings with the Union. In February 2020, Sword complained to his supervisor that a side agreement guaranteeing another operator 40 hours per week violated the collective bargaining agreement, and he later sought assistance from his union representative to address his concerns. Shortly after the union meeting with management about Sword’s complaint, Sword was permanently laid off, while other operators returned to work.Sword filed unfair labor practice charges against VNS with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging unlawful discharge in retaliation for engaging in protected concerted activity. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found that VNS violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). VNS filed exceptions, but the NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s findings and issued an order requiring VNS to offer Sword reinstatement, provide backpay, and post remedial notices. The NLRB declined to resolve disputes over remedies at that stage, following its practice of deferring such issues to compliance proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the NLRB’s petition to enforce its order. The court found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB’s determination that Sword engaged in protected concerted activity, that VNS discharged him because of animus toward that activity, and that VNS’s justification for the layoff was pretextual. The Sixth Circuit granted enforcement of the NLRB’s order in full, declining to address challenges to the scope of remedies until compliance proceedings are completed. View "NLRB v. VNS Fed. Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

Dale Gourneau worked as a carman for BNSF Railway Company, inspecting railroad cars to ensure compliance with safety regulations. In January 2020, BNSF terminated Gourneau following a disciplinary proceeding. Gourneau subsequently filed a whistleblower complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor, alleging that BNSF unlawfully retaliated against him for reporting hazardous safety conditions in good faith.After administrative proceedings, an Administrative Law Judge found in favor of Gourneau, ordering reinstatement, backpay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The Administrative Review Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision and order. BNSF petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for review, arguing that the Department’s process violated the company’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit examined whether the administrative adjudication of Gourneau’s claims for legal remedies—liability, backpay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages—implicated the Seventh Amendment. The court determined that Gourneau’s claim was analogous to a common-law wrongful discharge action and sounded basically in tort, entitling BNSF to a jury trial. The court rejected arguments that the “public rights” exception allowed agency adjudication without a jury trial, finding that Gourneau’s claim was a standalone suit between private parties and not so integrated into a regulatory scheme as to justify agency resolution without a jury. The court concluded that Congress may not avoid a jury trial by assigning such disputes to an agency.The Eighth Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the order of the Administrative Review Board, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, holding that BNSF is entitled to a jury trial on Gourneau’s claims for legal remedies before any equitable claims are adjudicated. View "BNSF Railway Co. v. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law