Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from an order of the district court insofar as that order denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112 et seq. At issue was whether a New York court's judgment dismissing on timeliness grounds a plaintiff's Article 78 petition seeking review of an adverse administrative determination of her employment discrimination claims precluded the plaintiff from bringing federal discrimination claims in federal court. The court held that this issue warranted certification to the New York Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs, sergeants in the New York City Police Department (NYPD), brought this lawsuit alleging denial of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., for the period covering April 19, 2001 to the present. Plaintiffs appealed from a July 20, 2009 judgment of the district court in favor of defendant and sought review of, inter alia, the district court's November 6, 2007 Opinion and Order denying their motion for summary judgment and sua sponte granting partial summary judgment in favor of defendant. The court held that the Department of Labor's interpretation of its regulations was not "plainly erroneous or inconsistent" with the pertinent FLSA regulations and thus was entitled to controlling deference. Applying that interpretation to the facts of the case, the court held that the primary duty of sergeants was not "management" and therefore, plaintiffs did not qualify for the "bona fide executive" exemption from the FLSA's overtime pay requirements. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and for further proceedings.

Petitioner sought review of three decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) affirming in part and reversing in part the ALJ's findings with respect to allegations that AM Property Holding Corporation (AM) participated in a scheme with two successive cleaning contractors to avoid a bargaining obligation with petitioner after AM purchased a certain building. At issue was whether the NLRB erred by finding that: (1) AM was not a joint employer with either contractors; (2) the NLRB was precluded from determining whether one contractor was individually a successor employer to Clean-Right, the in-house cleaning division of the former owner of the building because the General Counsel had not litigated a violation based on that theory; and (3) petitioner was not entitled to additional remedies. The court rejected the first and third claims of error, but concluded that as to the second, the NLRB misunderstood its authority to determine whether one of the contractors was individually a successor employer to Clean-Right. Therefore, the court remanded so that the NLRB could reconsider this issue.

Plaintiff, a former probationary police officer, appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing his complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging principally that defendants, Chief of the Middletown Police Department (MPD) and other members of the MPD, violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech by causing the termination of his employment in retaliation for his refusals to make false statements in connection with an investigation into a civilian complaint alleging use of excessive force by a MPD officer. On appeal, plaintiff argued that Garcetti v. Ceballos and Weintraub v. Board of Education did not preclude First Amendment protection for his refusals to make false statements. The court considered all of defendants' arguments in support of affirmance and found them to be without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the district court was vacated to the extent that it dismissed plaintiff's claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and the matter was remanded.

Plaintiff sued defendants for various violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and parallel provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code 8-101 et seq., after defendants terminated plaintiff. A jury found that plaintiff's termination was in retaliation for complaints he made about his supervisor and it awarded compensatory and punitive damages. Both parties appealed numerous issues related to pre-trial, trial, and post-trial proceedings. The court held that it need not determine whether the district court was authorized to grant such relief since the court read the parties' joint submission as effectively stipulating to a new jury trial, the result of which was an award in the reduced amount of $190,000, rendering the district court's judgment final. The court affirmed the decision of the district court that plaintiff's original punitive damages award was unconstitutionally excessive. The court further held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to correct its clerical mistake without first obtaining leave from this court to do so, but now the court granted that leave nunc pro tunc. The court finally held that because the remaining issues raised in both parties' appeals were without merit, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in its entirety.

Plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-17, claiming compensatory damages for disparate treatment and hostile work environment. Plaintiff also brought parallel state law claims and sought backpay and reinstatement under Title VII and attorneys' fees. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's rulings on the post-trial motions regarding backpay, her state law claims, and the hourly rate applied to the award of attorneys' fees. The court held that because a backpay award required a separate inquest, a district court could not deny an award of backpay because it believed that an award of compensatory damages was sufficient. Accordingly, on remand, the district court was directed to hold a separate inquest as to backpay. The court also held that because the district court abused its discretion in its "specific finding" that plaintiff was not entitled to backpay, the district court should consider in the first instance on remand whether plaintiff was entitled to reinstatement or, in the alternative, front pay. The court further held that plaintiff abandoned her state law claims because she did not pursue the matter diligently. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to remove its "abandonment" reference. The court finally held that the district court's award of attorneys' fees, while perhaps lagging behind the market, was not an abuse of discretion.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing his complaint against his former employer, seeking monetary and equitable relief for alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq., and state law. At issue was whether the separation agreement between the parties was unenforceable because its provisions did not comply with the requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), 29 U.S.C. 626(f), and applicable Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations, that the separation agreement be written in a manner calculated to be understood. The court held that the separation agreement was written in a manner calculated to be understood by the relevant employees of defendant. The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that summary judgment should have been denied because there were genuine issues of fact to be tried and that the separation agreement was unenforceable because plaintiff was not advised in writing to consult with an attorney. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiffs, a group of retail sales employees of defendant, appealed from an order of the district court vacating an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator had exceeded her authority in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Stolt-Nielson S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. At issue was whether a district court had the authority to vacate an arbitration award where it believed that the arbitrator improperly interpreted the terms of an arbitration agreement. The court held that, because the district court did not undertake the appropriate inquiry - whether, based on the parties' submission for the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator had the authority to reach an issue, not whether the arbitrator decided the issue correctly - and instead substituted its own legal analysis for that of the arbitrator's, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. The court also held that, because the court found that the arbitrator acted within her authority to reach an issue properly submitted to her by the parties and reached her decision by analyzing the terms of the agreement in light of applicable law, the award should not have been vacated. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to confirm the award.

Plaintiff sued defendant asserting claims of breach of contract and various business torts in connection with defendant's alleged wrongful termination of plaintiff's employment affiliation with defendant. Plaintiff appealed from summary judgment in favor of defendant on one of its counterclaims against plaintiff for nonrepayment of the outstanding balance of a loan for which he had given a promissory note. The court held that the district court's order of summary judgment was inappropriate and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the determination that the promissory note was independent of the promises made by defendant in the Affiliation Agreements would involve consideration of defendant's promises underlying plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination and of the relationships among those promises. Therefore, the court would be required to consider many of the same issues that would need to be considered in any appeal from a final judgment adjudicating plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiffs sued defendants, former directors of a retirees association of former unionized transportation workers, alleging, among other things, that defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the retirees association and its members by buying and maintaining a health insurance policy with premiums that far outstripped the benefits received by members. When defendants prevailed on all counts, defendants appealed the district court's denial of their fees motion. At issue was whether the district court erred in denying the fees motion in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. The court affirmed and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees where, although the district court did not have the benefit of Hardt in reaching its decision, nothing in the district court's opinion contradicted Hardt or suggested that the district court would have decided the matter differently in light of Hardt. Accordingly, Hardt did not require the court to reverse or remand. The court also held that, when determining whether attorney's fees should be awarded to defendants, the court focused on whether plaintiffs brought the complaint in good faith.