Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The United States brought suit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., alleging racial discrimination in the hiring of New York City firefighters. On appeal, the City of New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and former Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta challenged the district court's order issuing an injunction against the City with respect to the hiring of entry-level firefighters. Intervenors cross-appealed a partial final judgment dismissing their federal and state law claims against Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Scoppetta. The City, inter alia, sought review of an order granting Intervenors summary judgment on their disparate treatment claim. The court concluded that (1) summary judgment was improperly entered on Intervenors' disparate treatment claims; (2) the federal and state law claims against Mayor Bloomberg were properly dismissed, as were the state law claims against Commissioner Scopetta, but the federal law claims against Commissioner Scoppetta should be reinstated; (3) most portions of the injunction based on the unchallenged disparate impact finding were within the district court's remedial discretion, but other portions, particularly those portions based on the improper discriminatory treatment ruling, exceeded that discretion; and (4) on remand, the bench trial on the liability phase of the disparate treatment claim against the City should be reassigned to a different district judge. Therefore, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "United States v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her former employer asserting claims of gender discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), N.Y.C. Admin. Code 8-107(1)(a), (7). The district court granted summary judgment to the employer and dismissed the complaint. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the record presented genuine disputes of material fact regarding both plaintiff's claims under the NYCHRL. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for trial. View "Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), N.Y. Exec. Law 290 et seq., alleging that an affair that one of her brothers had with another worker in their family business created a hostile work environment and that both of her brothers retaliated against her for complaining about the affair. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of her retaliation claim. The court examined all of plaintiff's arguments on appeal and found them to be without merit. Because there was no indication that plaintiff believed that her sex had anything to with her treatment or that defendants could have understood her statements as such, she failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Assocs. Consulting Eng'rs., P.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of her claims of employment discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and New York City law. Plaintiff claimed that defendants unfairly reprimanded her, observed her classroom with unusual frequency, evaluated her classroom performance negatively, and gave her less desirable classroom assignments and duties. She argued that these actions were unwarranted and motivated by discriminatory and retaliatory animus. Defendants acknowledged that they increased their supervision of and attention toward plaintiff, but they contended that they did so to address her performance and behavioral issues. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants for substantially the reasons articulated by the district court. With respect to plaintiff's retaliation claims, even if the court assumed that defendants' actions resulted in adverse employment action, no reasonable jury could find that such actions were motivated by a retaliatory animus. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "Sotomayor v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, who are supervisors or officials at the Ulster County, New York Sheriff's Office and the county jail, took adverse employment actions against them in retaliation for a parody created by one of the plaintiffs that suggested corruption among jail officials, and subsequently filing a lawsuit based upon this alleged retaliation. The court held that the district court correctly determined that none of the conduct for which plaintiffs alleged they suffered retaliation touched on a matter of public concern, and that plaintiffs as public employees, could therefore not sustain First Amendment claims under section 1983 against defendants. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Singer v. Ferro" on Justia Law

SDBC, formerly known as Stella D'oro, petitioned for review of a decision and order of the Board which held that Stella D'oro engaged in unfair labor practices principally by declining to permit the Union to retain a copy of the 2007 audited financial statement during the course of collective bargaining. The Board cross-petitioned for enforcement. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion that Stella D'oro pled an "inability to pay," thereby triggering a duty for the company to substantiate those assertions; moreover, the Board erroneously disregarded settled law in failing to properly apply or distinguish through reasoned decisionmaking Stroehmann Bakeries. Even if the facts supported a conclusion that Stella D'oro pled an inability to pay, Stella D'oro adequately substantiated its assertions by making the 2007 Financial Statement available to Union representatives for examination and note-taking, and therefore the company acted lawfully. Accordingly, SDBC's petition for review of the Board's decision was granted, and the Board's cross-petition for enforcement was denied. View "SDBC Holdings, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint against the Guthrie Defendants. Plaintiff's principal issue on appeal required the court to consider whether the unauthorized disclosure of confidential medical information by a medical corporation's employee gives a plaintiff a right of action for breach of fiduciary duty under New York law that runs directly against the corporation, even when the corporation's employee acted outside the scope of her employment and is not plaintiff's treating physician. Plaintiff's appeal presented a question that has not been resolved by the New York Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the court deferred decision and certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals. The court disposed of plaintiff's remaining claims on appeal in a separate summary order filed simultaneously with this opinion. View "Doe v. Guthrie Clinic, Ltd." on Justia Law

Goldman Sachs appealed from an order of the district court denying their motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims of gender discrimination. Plaintiff and others alleged that Goldman Sachs engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of discrimination based on sex against female employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, Administrative Code of the City of New York 8-107 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the arbitration clause in her agreement must be invalidated because arbitration would preclude her from vindicating a statutory right. The court disagreed and held that the district court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration where plaintiff had no substantive statutory right to pursue a pattern-or-practice claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co." on Justia Law

The Companies, Cookson and Vesuvius, appealed the district court's judgment denying their motion for summary judgment and granting the cross-motion of the Union. After the Companies closed a facility that Vesuvius had operated, Vesuvius and the Union entered into a Facility Closure Agreement (FCA). Both parties subsequently disputed whether the agreement required Vesuvius to pay a retiree medical allowance (RMA) to certain eligible employees. The district court held that the FCA imposed such a requirement. The court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly interpreted the parties' agreement and that the Union, as party to that agreement, had standing to enforce it even where the benefits of enforcement accrued to third-party retirees. View "United Steel v. Cookson America, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the ARB of the DOL affirming an ALJ order dismissing petitioner's retaliation claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. 1514A. The court held: (1) To prevail on a whistleblower claim under the Act, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she engaged in a protected activity; the employer knew that he or she engaged in the protected activity; he or she suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and the protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action. If the employee proved these four elements, the employer could rebut this prima facie case with clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the protected behavior. (2) The ARB did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, or abuse its discretion, in affirming the ALJ's dismissal of the complaint under the correct legal standard. (3) Petitioner's remaining claims lacked merit. View "Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd." on Justia Law