Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The National Treasury Employees' Union (Union) sought review of an adverse ruling by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (Authority) where the Union filed a grievance alleging that the IRS was processing its members' dues revocation forms without following contractually-mandated procedures. After the parties filed exceptions to the arbitrator's award with the Authority, the Authority denied the parties' exceptions and confirmed the award in its entirety. The Union petitioned the court for review. The court held that because the Authority's decision upholding the arbitrator's award was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, the court had no warrant to disturb the Authority's decision.

This case stemmed from the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Volvo Group North America, LLC (Volvo) and the union representing workers at Volvo's New River Valley assembly plant (NRV). At issue was whether the CBA permitted Volvo to make unilateral changes to the health benefits of retirees from its NRV assembly plant after the agreement expired. The court held that Volvo was not permitted to make unilateral modifications to the retirees' health benefits after the expiration of the CBA unless it followed the mechanism agreed to by both parties in that agreement. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court where Volvo could not employ that mechanism in this case.

The trustee of a bankruptcy estate filed objections to the requested priority treatment under 11 U.S.C. 507 of a portion of severance compensation claims filed by the debtor's former employees (claimants). The bankruptcy court overruled the objections. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the claimants "earned" their severance compensation on the date they became participants in the debtorâs severance plan immediately after their termination from employment.

Plaintiff, an employee of defendant, filed this action on behalf of herself and similarly-situated employees to recover wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. 201, et. seq., for time spent donning and doffing protective gear during the workday at defendant's poultry processing plants. At issue was whether the district court properly held that the activities identified by the employees were compensable as "work" under the FLSA and that defendant's failure to pay the employees for these activities constituted a violation of the FLSA. The court agreed with the district court in substantial part and held that the time spent donning and doffing protective gear at the beginning and end of each workday was compensable as "work" under the FLSA. The court held, however, that based on the court's decision in Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., decided after the district court entered judgment in the present case, the court was required to hold that the mid-shift donning and doffing of protective gear at the employees' meal break was not compensable. The court additionally affirmed the district court's holding that defendant's violations of the FLSA were not "willful" and, accordingly, a two-year statute of limitations was applicable to the employees' claims for "back pay." Lastly, the court affirmed the district court's holding that defendant acted in good faith and its resulting decision declining to award liquidated damages to the employees.

Plaintiff sued defendant alleging breach of fiduciary duty and sought damages under the "other appropriate equitable relief" provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), where defendant denied plaintiff's life insurance coverage claims for her deceased daughter on the grounds that her daughter did not qualify for coverage under the plan's "eligible dependent children" provision. At issue was whether section 1132(a)(3) allowed the remedy of surcharge, which would permit recovery of the life insurance proceeds lost by plaintiff because of defendant's breach of fiduciary duty. Also at issue was whether the court should recognize equitable estoppel as part of the common law of ERISA. Further at issue was whether the district court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the remedy of surcharge was not available under section 1132(a)(3) and that the district court did not err in limiting plaintiff's damages to the premiums withheld by defendant where plaintiff sought a legal, not equitable, remedy, and that, to the extent plaintiff sought to sanction defendant, this remedy was also not allowed under ERISA. The court also declined to use estoppel principles to modify the unambiguous terms of an ERISA plan. The court further held that the district court did not err in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment where defendant lacked standing to prosecute its cross-appeal where defendant was not aggrieved by a judgment requiring it to pay an amount that it always agreed that it owed and where defendant already refunded the premiums.

The Secretary of the United States Department of Labor ("DOL") petitioned the district court to enforce administrative document subpoenas after a DOL investigation into the management of respondents (collectively, "Funds"), which arose out of a $10.1 million loss of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. 1134(a)(1), plan assets, as a result of the Funds' investments in entities related to Bernard L. Madoff. At issue was whether the attorney-client and work product privileges protected some of the materials requested by the Secretary from disclosure and whether the district court erred in applying the fiduciary exception to override these privileges. The court affirmed the district court's order granting the Secretary's petition and held that the fiduciary exception applied to the Funds' claims of attorney-client privilege and no good cause showing was required in the ERISA context. The court also held that the Funds have failed to carry their burden to demonstrate the applicability of the work product doctrine.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of three individuals and present or former African American employees of Xerxes Corporation ("Xerxes"), alleged that Xerxes had a hostile work environment on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Xerxes based on its opinion that Xerxes' responses to the reports of harassment at issue were reasonable as a matter of law. The court partially vacated the summary judgment order and held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Xerxes was on notice of racial harassment of two of the individuals prior to February 2006 and took no action reasonably calculated to end the harassment.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's refusal to enforce a settlement agreement between plaintiff and his former employer, a government contractor, after plaintiff brought an action against his employer under the False Claims Act. At issue was whether the district court erred by not enforcing the settlement agreement, whether the district court made various errors during trial entitling plaintiff to a new trial, and whether the district court erred by awarding attorneys' fees to the employer. The court held that the district court properly denied plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement where the agreement died when the government rejected it and was not revived by a subsequent agreement between plaintiff and the government. The court also held that plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial where the district court committed no reversible error during trial The court further held that the district court erred in awarding attorneys' fees to the employer where plaintiff's claims were not clearly frivolous.

Plaintiff sued defendant, Freightliner, LLC ("Freightliner"), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII") and North Carolina law after Freightliner terminated plaintiff. At issue was whether summary judgment was proper where Freightliner's motion to strike the declaration of a belatedly-disclosed witness was granted. Also at issue was whether summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Freightliner on plaintiff's claims of hostile work environment sex discrimination, disparate treatment sex discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII. The court held that there was no abuse of discretion in striking from the summary judgment record the belatedly-disclosed declaration. The court also held that the district court erred only on its disposition of the hostile work environment claim as a matter of law and therefore, vacated the judgment and remanded the case as to the hostile work environment claim.