Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Circle C contracted to construct buildings at the Fort Campbell military base. The agreement included determinations of hourly wages for electrical workers. Circle C has had government contracts for 20 years; its co-owner and a bookkeeper attended training on the prevailing wage requirement for federal government contracts. PT was Circle C’s subcontractor on 98 percent of the electrical work, but did not have a written contract. Circle C provided PT with the wage determination excerpts from its contract, but did not explain the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3142) prevailing wage requirements nor verify whether PT submitted its own payroll certifications, nor monitor PT’s eight employees’ work on the project, nor take measures to ensure payment of proper wages. One of the PT electricians claimed violation of the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(2). The Department of Labor found inaccurate or false payroll certifications. The district court awarded treble damages: $1,661,423.13. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, but remanded for recalculation of the damages. Circle C, an experienced contractor, made false statements, acted in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information, and the false statements were “material” to the government’s decision to make payment.View "Wall v. Circle C Constr., L.L.C." on Justia Law

Clay was appointed as public records coordinator for the City of Memphis. The volume of public-record requests increased substantially during an FBI investigation into awards of city contracts. Clay claims that her efforts to comply with requests were thwarted by delays in response from city employees and even delays in requests for office supplies and a place for the public to review documents. Clay was also concerned with the conduct of various other employees, such as not reporting absences, and “issues regarding nepotism and favoritism based upon personal relationships.” Clay repeatedly raised her concerns to various officials. When a new mayor was sworn in, she began to suspect the new city attorney of abuse of policies and sought records concerning employees in that office. Clay’s employment was terminated and she sued, asserting violations of the Tennessee Public Protection Act, common law retaliatory discharge and wrongful termination, tortious interference with at-will employment, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, deprivation of constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and violation of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit reversed with respect to a First Amendment retaliation claim, but otherwise affirmed. View "Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, TN" on Justia Law

In 2008, Michigan passed the MMMA, Comp. Laws 333.26421, to protect medical marijuana. Any “qualifying patient” who possesses a registry identification card is not “subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty of any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business.” Plaintiff was employed by Wal-Mart for five years before he was terminated after testing positive for marijuana, in violation of the company’s drug use policy. The test was administered on the day after Plaintiff injured his knee at work. Plaintiff was diagnosed with sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor at age 17; he experiences constant pain and side effects of medications. In 2008, Plaintiff’s oncologist recommended marijuana; Plaintiff obtained a registry card and maintains that he followed state laws, never used marijuana at work, nor did he work under the influence. Plaintiff sued in state court for wrongful discharge and MMMA violation; defendants removed to federal court based on diversity. The district court denied remand and dismissed. The court held that the store manager, a Michigan resident, was fraudulently joined and that the MMMA does not regulate private employment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that the manager had no potential liability. View "Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

A collective bargaining agreement governs the relationship between Acument and its retired employees. Prior to 2008, the company paid healthcare and life-insurance benefits to qualified retirees. When Acument ended these benefits in 2008, a class of 64 retirees claimed that the company had violated the CBA in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. The district court granted Acument summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, characterizing the issue as “a matter of contract.” The relevant language states that the company “reserves the right to amend, modify, suspend, or terminate the Plan,” consisting of: retiree medical coverage; retirement income; disability income; and life insurance. View "Witmer v. Acument Global Tech., Inc." on Justia Law

Back was born in 1954 and began working at the food processing plant in 1998. Sometime before April 6, 2005, Hagerman, another Maintenance Team Leader, told Back that someone in human resources had told him that the company was planning to get rid of the three oldest employees and highest paid team leaders, a category that included Back and Hagerman. During the nine years that Back worked at the plant, he received both positive and negative reviews. His reviews became increasingly negative in 2006. Back was disciplined three times in 2006. One write-up specifically warned Back that he could be terminated for further problems. In 2007, Back was suspended for five days. Several weeks later, an explosion occurred at the plant and Back failed in his assignment to restart his line. Back was terminated, for stated reasons relating to history of failing to properly supervise his subordinates and his team’s history of failing to meet expectations. The district court rejected his suit under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. 344.010 to 344.990, finding Hagerman’s statement to be inadmissible hearsay. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Back v. Nestle USA, Inc." on Justia Law

In a 2009 opinion, the Sixth Circuit held that, in a 1998 collective bargaining agreement, CNH agreed to provide health-care benefits to retirees and their spouses for life, but rejected the suggestion that the scope of this commitment in the context of healthcare benefits, as opposed to pension benefits, meant that CNH could make no changes to the healthcare benefits provided to retirees. The court remanded for a determination of reasonableness with respect to CNH’s proposed changes to its retiree healthcare benefits, under which retirees, previously able to choose any doctor without suffering a financial penalty, would be put into a managed-care plan. The court listed three considerations: Does the modified plan provide benefits “reasonably commensurate” with the old plan? Are the proposed changes “reasonable in light of changes in health care”? And are the benefits “roughly consistent with the kinds of benefits provided to current employees”? On remand, the district court granted CNH summary judgment without reaching the reasonableness question or creating a factual record from which the determination could be made on appeal. The Sixth Circuit again remanded.View "Reese v. CNH America LLC" on Justia Law

Adams worked in coal mines for 17 years, leaving A & E Coal in 1988, after 12 years, because he was having difficulty breathing. He has not worked since. Adams also smoked cigarettes for about 25 years, averaging a pack a day before quitting in 1998 or 1999. Adams filed his first claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act 30 U.S.C. 901 in 1988. His claim was denied: He did not prove that his pneumoconiosis was caused in part by his coal-mine work, or that his pneumoconiosis totally disabled him. In 2007, Adams filed a second claim. Two pulmonologists agreed that he was completely disabled, but disagreed on what lung diseases Adams had, and on what caused them. An Administrative Law Judge awarded benefits, finding that Adams had pneumoconiosis, that the disease was caused by Adams’s exposure to coal dust during his coal-mine employment, and that he was totally disabled because of the disease. The Benefits Review Board and the Third Circuit affirmed. Although the ALJ was not required to look at the preamble to the regulations to assess the doctors’ credibility, he was entitled to do so. View "A & E Coal Co. v. Adams" on Justia Law

An involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition was filed against Quality Stores, which eventually closed operations and terminated all employees. Under the Pre-Petition Plan, severance pay was based on job grade. Payments were made on the normal payroll schedule, not tied to receipt of unemployment compensation, and not attributable to particular services. The Post-Petition Plan was designed to encourage employees to defer their job searches; the lump-sum payments were not tied to receipt of unemployment compensation, nor attributable to provision of particular services. Quality reported the payments as wages and withheld income tax, paid the employer’s share of FICA tax, and withheld each employee’s share of FICA. Of $1,000,125 at issue, $382,362 is attributed to the Pre-Petition Plan, $214,000 for the employer share and $168,362 for the employee share; $617,763 is attributed to the Post- Petition Plan, $357,127 for the employer share and $260,636 for the employee share. Quality argued that the payments were not wages but supplemental unemployment compensation benefits, not taxable under FICA, and sought a refund of the employer share and the shares of consenting employees. When the IRS did not act, Quality filed an adversary action in the bankruptcy court, which ordered a full refund. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed.View "United States v. Quality Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2003, Berrington began working for Wal-Mart; he took several approved leaves of absence. In February 2007, Berrington began a leave that was approved through April, 2007. Berrington, did not return to work after April 30. Berrington claims that because of conversations he had with managers, he did not believe he needed to update or extend his leave. In mid-May, a personnel manager contacted Berrington and told him to update his paperwork, which Berrington did. Three days later, Berrington was informed that he was fired, but that he could be rehired after 90 days. Berrington applied for unemployment benefits. Wal-Mart opposed Berrington’s request on the basis that Berrington voluntarily terminated his employment by failing to return from a leave of absence. Wal-Mart’s paperwork recommended rehiring Berrington. While the dispute was pending Berrington reapplied, but Wal-Mart did not hire him. He reapplied a second time, without success. Since August 2007, the store has hired employees to positions for which Berrington is qualified. Berrington contends Wal-Mart refused to hire him because he filed for unemployment benefits, which he eventually received. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, declining “to carve an unprecedented category of public policy claims out of Michigan law.” View "Berrington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Tingle alleged that she was disciplined and ultimately terminated from employment by the nursing home, in retaliation for speaking with investigators from the Ohio Department of Health following the death of a nursing home resident. She brought her claim under Ohio Revised Code 3721.24(A), which prohibits retaliation for participating in a Department of Health investigation, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The employer claimed that the termination was justified by the company’s progressive discipline policy. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Once a defendant has advanced a non-retaliatory reason for terminating an employee, it is the plaintiff’s burden to come forward with evidence that would tend to undermine the legitimacy of that reason. Tingle’s allegations were insufficient to suggest that the defendants lacked an honest belief in their proffered reasons for their actions. View "Tingle v. Arbors at Hilliard, " on Justia Law