Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

In 2007, the Unified School District 500 (USD 500) considered a recommendation to terminate plaintiff-appellant Charles Davis' employment when he was found lying naked on his stomach, sunbathing on the roof of the elementary school where he worked. Plaintiff had worked in the district as a custodian since 1991. Instead, the Board decided upon a suspension without pay for thirty days and demoted him from his position as head custodian. From 2008 to 2012, Davis applied for head custodian positions at seven different schools within USD 500, but was not hired for any of them. In 2008, 2010, and 2011, he filed claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging racial discrimination and later both discrimination and retaliation for filing EEOC claims. In 2012, plaintiff sued USD 500 and Stephen Vaughn, the Director of Human Resources for the district, claiming: (1) retaliation by Vaughn in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981; (2) retaliation by USD 500 in violation of Title VII and section 1981; and (3) delayed payment of overtime compensation by USD 500 in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court entered summary judgment in favor of USD 500 and Vaughn. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, refusing to make the inference, as plaintiff suggested, that based on the numerous denials he received, there was a common purpose to retaliate against him. View "Davis v. Unified School District 500, et al" on Justia Law

George Cohlmia appealed a district court's decision to award attorney’s fees to St. John Medical Center pursuant to the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). This case arose from two surgeries Cohlmia performed: one patient died as a result of surgery, another was permanently disfigured. After the Hospital conducted an internal review, it concluded Cohlmia failed to follow proper medical protocols, and suspended the doctor’s staff privileges. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital on all of the doctor’s claims. The Hospital thereafter sought attorney’s fees under the HCQIA. Finding that the district court did not abuse it's discretion in awarding fees under the Act, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Cohlmia, et al v. St. John Medical Center, et al" on Justia Law

Alan Christoffersen drove a truck for United Parcel Service (UPS) until he was struck and killed by an underinsured motorist. After the accident, Christoffersen's heirs sued UPS and its automobile insurer (Liberty Mutual Insurance Group), asserting claims for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. All parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted UPS's motion on the ground that Utah's Worker's Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. On the claim against Liberty Mutual, the court granted judgment to the heirs for $10,000. The heirs and Liberty Mutual appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Liberty Mutual did not incur liability because UPS validly rejected UIM coverage; therefore, with regard to the claim against Liberty Mutual, the Court reversed the judgment of $10,000 for the heirs and remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment to Liberty Mutual on the entire claim. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to UPS because it was not considered a "self insurer" for purposes of Utah's UIM statute. View "Christoffersen v. United Parcel Service, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Wyss pled guilty in December 2008 to one count of making false statements to the Federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Defendant concealed from TSA that he was working full-time for the Utah Department of Public Safety (DPS) while also employed full time by TSA. In his plea agreement and at his plea hearing, Defendant agreed he owed DPS $188,548.92 in restitution. The district court sentenced Defendant to three years probation. Over 40 months after his sentencing hearing, Defendant filed a motion asking the district court to grant him credit against the order of restitution. He claimed he was entitled to credit based on annual, sick, and holiday leave he earned while at DPS. DPS objected to Defendant’s motion; the Government did not submit a response. At an evidentiary hearing two weeks later, the district court squarely rejected the Government’s argument that the court lacked authority to reduce the amount of restitution Defendant owed DPS. The issue before the Tenth Circuit on appeal was whether 18 U.S.C. 3563(c) authorized the court to modify the restitution order imposed pursuant to the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) over three years after the judgment of sentence became final. The Tenth Circuit concluded section 3563(c) did not authorize the district court to modify the order and reversed. View "United States v. Wyss" on Justia Law

Rolland Goodin worked in coal mines for 25 years, and smoked cigarettes for more than 40 years. He developed a respiratory condition and filed for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA). An Administrative Law Judge awarded Goodin benefits. His employer, Antelope Coal Company/Rio Tinto Energy America appealed, but the Department of Labor Benefits Review Board affirmed. Antelope's primary argument on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was that the ALJ wrongly limited its options to rebut a regulatory presumption that Goodin's work as a coal miner caused his respiratory condition. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the award of benefits: "Antelope's arguments are more a matter of disagreement with the ALJ's assessment of the evidence as opposed to whether he considered the evidence at all. We may not reweigh the evidence but can only determine whether substantial evidence supported the decision." View "Antelope Coal Company/Rio v. Goodin" on Justia Law

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local No. 7 sued King Soopers, Inc. to enforce an arbitration award. The federal district court ruled that the award did not stem from the Union’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with King Soopers and refused to enforce it. The Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that although King Soopers could have brought a timely action to vacate the award on the ground adopted by the district court, it did not do so. It therefore could not raise that defense against the Union’s action to enforce the award. For the same reason, the Court held that King Soopers could not raise the defense that the arbitrator lacked authority to impose a remedy. View "United Food & Commercial v. King Soopers" on Justia Law

Camille Kramer sued her former employer the Wasatch County Sheriff’s Department for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. 1983. She appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Wasatch County on all claims. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment as to the 1983 claim but reversed on the Title VII claim. View "Kramer v. Wasatch Co. Sheriff's Office, et al" on Justia Law

United Parcel Service (UPS) fired Jeff Macon for dishonesty. He claimed that reason was a pretext; he was actually fired in violation of his rights under the Kansas worker’s compensation statute. The district court concluded the uncontested facts showed UPS to have honestly believed Macon was dishonest and discharged him in good faith. Accordingly, it granted UPS' motion for summary judgment. Irrespective of his complaints about pretext and disparate treatment by supervisors, a regional independent union/management grievance panel for UPS conducted an investigation and decided discharge for dishonesty was appropriate. Based upon that independent and informed decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment. View "Macon v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered a novel question: Does issue preclusion apply in bankruptcy court to a final determination in district court that a party waived an issue? Upon review of the circumstances of this case and the applicable statutes, the Court concluded issue preclusion did not apply to the waiver finding here. The Court reversed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and remanded this case for the bankruptcy court to reinstate its order. View "Clark v. Zwanziger" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Steven Smothers sued his former employer Solvay Chemical, Inc. for alleged discrimination against him on the basis of his medical disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He worked eighteen years until Solvay fired him, allegedly because of a safety violation and dispute with a co-worker. Plaintiff maintained the company's true motivation was retaliation for his taking medical leave. The district court granted Solvay summary judgment on plaintiff's FMLA and ADA claims and on his state law claim for breach of implied contract. It dismissed the remaining state law claims as moot based on its resolution of plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Upon careful consideration of the facts of this case, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court on the FMLA and ADA claims, and affirmed on the state law breach of contract claim. View "Smothers v. Solvay Chemicals Inc." on Justia Law