Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

In 1999 the company discharged a forklift driver and a warehouseman. An ALJ ordered reinstatement and payment for their losses, concluding that they had been subject to surveillance and discharged discriminatorily on account of their involvement in a union. The NLRB affirmed and, in 2001, the Third Circuit entered an order of enforcement. The workers did not seek reinstatement or testify concerning at a hearing on calculation of backpay. The ALJ recommended the amounts of back pay in 2002 and, in 2007, the NLRB remanded, holding that the company produced evidence of substantially equivalent jobs in the area, but that general counsel, for the employees, had not met its burden of production as to the employees' reasonable diligence to mitigate. After taking evidence on that issue, the ALJ reinstated the awards of $26,447.90 and $14,646.79. The Board affirmed. The Third Circuit entered an order to enforce the award, which was supported by substantial evidence of diligence in searching for interim employment.

The governor terminated two public employees. The district court ordered reinstatement. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded. After examining the law of the U.S. Virgin Islands, the court determined that the employees were "career service," not exempt employees, but were not "regular" employees and, therefore, did not have a protected property interest in their jobs.

A police officer was suspended for his handling of another officer's complaint against superior officers in violation of policies governing use of the computer system. A union grievance resulted in an award of back pay and benefits to the date of the award. The Office of the Inspector General issued a report several months after the incident and scheduled a hearing, which resulted in termination. After filing another union grievance, the officer was reinstated without back pay. The district court rejected claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit affirmed, first holding that the defendants were protected by qualified immunity. Under Pennsylvania law, the officer had a protected property interest in his job and, absent extraordinary circumstances, was entitled to a pre-suspension hearing, but that right was not clearly established. Prior case law could have been interpreted as indicating that the post-suspension union grievance hearing was adequate. The notice of the termination hearing was adequate, despite not identifying the specific rules allegedly violated.

The U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board affirmed a miner's award of disability benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901-945. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. The claim was not barred by a provision requiring filing within three years after a medical determination of total disability due to pneumoconiosis. Noting the remedial intent of the statute, the court held that denial of benefits in 1989, based on a finding that a doctor's opinion was a misdiagnosis, reset the clock. The hearing officer did not act on a âsilent presumption,â but properly evaluated doctors' reports and detailed evidence, including physical exams, pulmonary function and blood gas tests, and analyses of other possible causes, such as smoking, to support his conclusion that the miner had a chronic lung disease arising out of his exposure to coal dust from mine employment.

A nurse filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1059, claiming that her former employer had failed to maintain accurate records. She alleged that nurses were required to work certain hours for which they were not paid and should receive benefits for those hours. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed. The employer had an obligation to keep records adequate to determine benefits due; what benefits are due depends on the language of the pension plan. The pension plans at issue tie benefits to compensation paid, not to what was earned, so the employer had no obligation to keep records of hours allegedly worked and not compensated. ERISA includes a provision for seeking benefits due on compensation wrongfully withheld; the nurse may file under that provision if she wins her state compensation claim.

Under Pennsylvania law, 53 Pa. Stat. 46190, police officers may not be suspended or terminated without just cause. An officer, who entered charges against other officers on the police network on behalf of another, but in violation of regulations governing use of the system, was suspended without a hearing. A union grievance resulted in an award of back-pay. A report by the Office of the Inspector General, issued months later, detailed the conduct at issue and gave notice of a hearing, after which the officer was terminated. The district court held that the post-deprivation union grievance proceeding cured the lack of pre-deprivation due process and that it was not necessary that the officer be notified of the exact rules he was charged with violating. The Third Circuit affirmed. The officer had a constitutionally protected interest, and, absent extraordinary circumstances, could not be suspended without a hearing. That right, however, was not clearly established at the time of the suspension, so the officers involved in the suspension were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The notice of termination hearing gave the officer adequate information about the conduct that was the basis for action.