Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the former employee of the standing trustee for the Western district of Louisiana (defendant), filed suit against defendant alleging violation of the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (LEDL), Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:301-03, 23:323. Defendant removed the suit to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). The district court determined that removal was proper, and that defendant should be granted summary judgment because he did not qualify as an "employer" under the LEDL. The court concluded that defendant acts under officers of the United States and fell within section 1442(a)(1)'s purview, and defendant has averred a colorable federal defense and was entitled to remove this case under the federal officer removal statute. The court held that summary judgment was proper because defendant did not qualify as an employer under the LEDL. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bell v. Thornburg" on Justia Law

Island petitioned for review of a modification of a benefits award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWC Act), 33 U.S.C. 901-950. Island's employee had filed claims for benefits under the LHWC Act after he injured his knee on an oil production platform. Island argued that the original judgment was not eligible for modification or alternatively, the facts did not support the modification. The court concluded that both Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Ass'n and O'Keefe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc. clearly established that contrary to Island's position, mistakes of fact were not limited to newly discovered and previously unattainable evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the Benefit Review Board's (BRB) decision on this basis. Alternatively, the court concluded that there was evidence to support the ALJ's finding, and the BRB correctly affirmed the modification of the employee's award to include permanent partial benefits. View "Island Operating Co., Inc., et al. v. DOWCP, et al." on Justia Law

D.R. Horton petitioned for review of the Board's holding that D.R. Horton had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by requiring its employees to sign an arbitration agreement that, among other things, prohibited an employee from pursuing claims in a collective or class action. After addressing issues regarding the composition of the Board, the court concluded that the Board's decision did not give proper weight to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 2. The court upheld the Board, though, on requiring D.R. Horton to clarify with its employees that the arbitration agreement did not eliminate their rights to pursue claims of unfair labor practices with the Board. View "D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on her retaliation claim, which she claimed resulted from her complaints about sexual harassment. The court held that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the conduct at issue created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, and, if so, whether plaintiff's complaint about that conduct was causally related to her termination. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case on her retaliation claim. View "Royal v. CCC& R Tres Arboles, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Carey Salt petitioned for review of the Board's decision finding that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (3), and (5). The disputes underlying this case arose when the parties met to bargain over the terms of a new agreement that would replace the one that was expiring. The court enforced the order in part and vacated in part, concluding that substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole supported findings material to all terms of the order's mandate that Carey Salt cease and desist from presenting regressive bargaining proposals for the purpose of frustrating negotiations. View "Carey Salt Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the United States and others, alleging violations of her religious rights under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. Plaintiff lost her job by failing to comply with the applicable regulations or to receive an appropriate waiver when she wore a kirpan (a Sikh ceremonial sword) to work. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Title VII claim where her employer's, the IRS, failure to accommodate plaintiff did not violate Title VII as a matter of law. The court reversed and remanded plaintiff's RFRA claim for further development of evidence concerning the government's compelling interest in enforcing against plaintiff the statutory ban on weapons with blades exceeding 2.5 inches. View "Tagore v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, console supervisors at a refinery, alleged that their employer, CITGO, misclassified them as exempt from the overtime payment requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment for CITGO based on plaintiffs' inability to prove damages but reduced CITGO's award of taxable costs. Both parties appealed. The court affirmed the district court's discovery sanctions dismissing seventeen plaintiffs (the January Sanction); discovery sanctions dismissing four additional plaintiffs (the March Sanction); and dismissal of the three remaining plaintiffs after preventing them from testifying about damages. The court concluded, however, that it was not entirely evident whether the district court intended plaintiffs' limited resources to be an independent basis for the cost reduction or whether, instead, it was a dependent part of a comparative-wealth analysis. Accordingly, the court reversed the order reducing costs and rendered in favor of CITGO for $53,065.72. View "Moore, et al. v. CITGO Refng. & Chem. Co., L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against PSEG alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and other statutes. The court concluded that the district court did not err in submitting the first special verdict question - "Was a Plaintiff a qualified individual with a disability?" - where the jury-instruction definitions of "disability" and "qualified individual" properly conformed to the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). The court also concluded that the district court did not err in submitting the third special verdict question - "Was a Plaintiff a qualified individual with a disability?" Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in either jury interrogatory, there was no need to consider whether an error required reversal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Neely v. PSEG Texas LP, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the police chief, filed suit against defendant, the mayor, alleging unconstitutional retaliation as well as state tort law claims. On interlocutory appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order denying qualified immunity and plaintiff cross-appealed the district court's dismissal of one of his tort claims. Because the court concluded that plaintiff acted pursuant to his official job duties, the court need not consider the remaining prongs of the First Amendment retaliation test since he could not show that defendant violated his First Amendment rights. Therefore, the court remanded, concluding that the district court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's cross appeal, declining to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a state law tort claim in an interlocutory appeal of the district court's order denying qualified immunity. View "Gibson v. Kilpatrick" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Performance, One Beacon, and others for damages stemming from a personal injury that he sustained while working on a fixed platform. After the parties settled, the suit proceeded to trial, and the district court found Performance 15% at fault for the accident and awarded plaintiff $200,000 in damages. The court concluded that, in light of the evidence presented at trial, it was not implausible for the court to find that Richard John Boutte, as the designated signalman for the blind lift, was significantly more at fault for plaintiff's injuries than was Shalico Andow, a Performance employee. Because the district court took a permissible view of the evidence in finding Andow only 15% at fault, the court affirmed that determination. Because Performance failed to show that borrowed employee status should be applied here, the court affirmed the district court's holding that Andow was not a borrowed employee. Finally, a general damages award of $65,000 was much closer to what Louisiana courts would award plaintiff based on the facts. Because $200,000 was more than 133% of $65,000, the district court's award of general damages was excessive as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court remitted the general damage portion of plaintiff's award to $86,450. View "Delahoussaye v. Performance Energy Services, et al." on Justia Law