Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an employee of Defendant, filed claims against Defendant for unlawful employment retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff alleged that she was subject to several adverse employment actions that were taken in retaliation for occasions on which Plaintiff called attention to Defendant's purportedly discriminatory employment practices. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluded that, as to the two aspects of her employment at issue, Plaintiff had neither established a prima facie case of retaliation nor shown that Defendants' stated rationales for their purportedly unlawful actions toward her were pretextual. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that no reasonable fact-finder could resolve the issues in Plaintiff's favor. View "Colon v. Tracey" on Justia Law

Appellant was a probationary public employee of the Town of Smithfield, Rhode Island. The Town hired Appellant on the condition that he obtain his building official certification. After Appellant failed to obtain the certification, the Town terminated Appellant. Appellant filed a complaint against the Town and its officials, alleging that he received insufficient procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when his employment was terminated and that the Town violated the Rhode Island Constitution and Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act when it fired him. Defendants removed the case to federal court. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Appellant received constitutionally adequate procedural due process; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in reaching and resolving the state law claims after ruling against Appellant on the sole federal claim. View "Senra v. Town of Smithfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was hired by Employer in 2000 and began working as part of a five-person sales team. In 2009, Employer reduced the sales team to two employees and terminated Defendant. Plaintiff was fifty-five years old at the time. Plaintiff subsequently file a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), alleging age discrimination. MCAD dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for a lack of probable cause. Plaintiff then brought suit in state court, claiming age discrimination under Massachusetts law. Employer removed the case to the U.S. district court based on diversity jurisdiction. Thereafter, the district court granted Employer's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in partially denying Plaintiff's third motion to compel; (2) in quashing deposition notices for three of Employer's employees; and (3) in granting summary judgment to Employer. View "Woodward v. Emulex Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an instructor in graphics who did not have a Ph.D., was denied a tenure-track position at the University of Puerto Rico. Three others, all of whom had Ph.D.s as the description required, did receive tenure-track positions. Plaintiff filed administrative discrimination charges, followed by a Title VII lawsuit against the University. The district court granted summary judgment for the University. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Ph.D. requirement for tenure-track positions was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the University's actions and that Plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing that the articulated reason was pretextual. View "Johnson v. Univ. of P.R." on Justia Law

The United States Postal Services (USPS) terminated Plaintiff's employment contract after discovering, through a sting operation, that Plaintiff had stolen mail containing money. The Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals (PSBCA) convened an evidentiary hearing and determined that Plaintiff's breach of his employment contract justified the decision to terminate his contract. Plaintiff did not appeal this decision. Meanwhile, Plaintiff initiated a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit against the United States for the actions of USPS employees on the date of the sting, alleging six torts. The district court dismissed three of the claims and granted summary judgment to the government on the remaining claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court as to all claims, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that the PSCBA's findings precluded relitigation of the factual issues in Plaintiff's FTCA suit; and (2) summary judgment was properly granted as to Plaintiff's FTCA claims for negligent supervision, malicious prosecution, and invasion of privacy by postal inspectors. View "Rios-Pineiro v. United States" on Justia Law

After exhausting her administrative remedies, Plaintiff, together with her husband and their conjugal partnership, sued Employer under Title VII, alleging sex discrimination in the form of hostile-work-environment harassment, and retaliation for challenging the harassment. A magistrate judge entered summary judgment for Employer on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) ultimately, Plaintiff had no sex discrimination claim against Employer and so summary judgment was appropriate on that claim; (2) the evidence did not show that Employer infracted Title VII by retaliating against Employee for alleging that Employer discriminated against her on the basis of sex; and (3) Plaintiff could not prevail on her claim that the federal court judge was "bound" by Puerto Rico's summary-judgment policy. View "Medina-Rivera v. MVM, Inc." on Justia Law

Former employees (Plaintiffs) of a failed bank taken into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sued Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR), a bank that subsequently acquired the failed bank's deposits and certain assets on claims for severance pay. The FDIC intervened, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the claims because Plaintiffs either failed to file administrative claims with the FDIC or failed to challenge in federal court the FDIC's disallowance of their administrative claims. BPPR moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable for any severance claims for at least three different merits-based reasons. The district court granted summary judgment for BPPR and did not address the question of whether it had jurisdiction. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated entry of summary judgment for Defendants and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that Plaintiffs' failures to comply with the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act administrative claims process triggered the statutory bar, and Plaintiffs could not avoid the jurisdictional bar by failing to name the FDIC as a defendant. View "Acosta-Ramirez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were former employees of the Puerto Rico Administration of Juvenile Institutions. After an election that produced a regime change, Plaintiffs were ousted from their positions, notwithstanding solid qualifications and positive evaluations. Plaintiffs sued several government defendants, invoking 42 U.S.C. 1983 and alleged discrimination based on political affiliation in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiffs also lodged pendent claims under Puerto Rico law. The district court ruled that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief because it did not assert facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of political discrimination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding (1) the prima facie case is not the appropriate benchmark for determining whether a complaint has met the plausibility standard under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly; (2) the factual allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint, taken as true, state plausible section 1983 claims for political discrimination with respect to two of the defendants; and (3) the pendent claims against those two defendants, which were dismissed without prejudice when the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, must be reinstated. Remanded. View "Rodriguez-Reyes v. Molina-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Egyptian-American, filed a workplace discrimination suit against the Mohegan Council, Boy Scouts of America alleging that he was denied career advancement opportunities on account of his religion of Islam and his national origin. After a jury trial, the district court ruled in favor of Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Mohegan Council's motion for judgment as a matter of law, where (1) the district court correctly found that Mohegan Council was an "employer" with the requisite fifteen or more employees under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) Plaintiff's complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination was timely filed; and (3) sufficient evidence supported a finding of discrimination. View "Aly v. Mohegan Council, Boys Scouts of Am." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an international affairs specialist at the Puerto Rico State Department, filed a complaint against the Department, ten of its employees, the Commonwealth (collectively, the State Department defendants), and the Puerto Rico Ports Authority. Plaintiff alleged that the State Department defendants had discriminated against her due to her political views and that they had denied her the rights and benefits to which she was entitled under federal and local law. As against the Ports Authority, Plaintiff alleged it slandered her by publishing false information regarding an arrest for marijuana, which prevented her from fulfilling her work duties. The district court found that Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appealed, requesting a reversal of the district court's refusal to grant leave to amend the complaint based upon its finding that amendment would be futile. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested amendment. View "Flores-Silva v. McClintock-Hernandez" on Justia Law