Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

In 2005 plaintiff, a long-time member of the operating engineers union (Local 324), was hired as a project developer and labor consultant; he was not initially authorized to negotiate with unions or to bind the company, but he did meet with various unions. Based on his meetings with other unions, he was expelled from Local 324. The expulsion did not interfere with his collective bargaining work. An ALJ concluded that Local 324 had violated section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations by restraining or coercing the company in its selection of a representative, but dismissed a claim under 29 U.S.C. 158(b)(1)(A) based on the termination of membership. The Board reversed, finding no violation. The Sixth Circuit upheld the decision. Plaintiff's duties extended only to investigation, not negotiation during the relevant period and information-gathering is not an activity protected by 8(b)(1(B), which protects employers, not employees.

Plaintiff, the only female and the only African-American employee in a small office, alleged a sexually and racially hostile environment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court found that plaintiff failed to file a document that meets the test for a "charge" with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on her claim of a sexually hostile work environment and, therefore, failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, holding that plaintiff's first EEOC filing, a "Charge Information Form," satisfied the elements of a charge. Affirming rejection of the charge of racially hostile environment, the court stated that, although despicable, alleged racist statements are not sufficiently "severe" or "pervasive" standing alone to create a jury question.

Workers claimed that unions breached their duty of fair representation by favoring certain skilled workers--millwrights and electricians--over machine repairmen. The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and, on remand, dismissed again, finding some claims barred by the statute of limitations. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Decisions and layoffs made before February 26, 2002, were discrete and potentially actionable events, not part of a continuing violation, and are barred by the statute of limitations. Because the union was not operating a hiring hall it was not subject to a higher duty of fair representation. Plaintiffs failed to show that union decisions concerning training and lines of demarcation were irrational or made in bad faith.

In the first lawsuit, retirees, funded by the union, obtained a preliminary injunction preventing plaintiff from terminating their healthcare benefits. The case is still pending. In the second lawsuit, the plaintiff claims that the union's participation in the first lawsuit violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and that the union, during negotiation of the CBA, committed breach of an implied warranty of authority, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The district court dismissed the second suit, holding that the union did not breach the CBA and that federal law preempted the state law claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that the union did not breach the CBA, which did not include a covenant not to sue, as claimed by the plaintiff. The court reversed with respect to preemption of the tort claims, which are "analytically distinct, but of a piece for purposes of" jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. 185(a).

The concrete supply company claimed that the union engaged in an illegal secondary boycott (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) when it caused the company to lose a construction contract by having a sister union threaten to boycott the project unless the company, which is not unionized, was replaced by a unionized supplier. The district court held that the company was unable to show that the threat was the proximate cause of its removal because the subcontractor that hired the company acted to satisfy the general contractorâs long-standing desire to use a unionized supplier. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the record supported the district court's decision.

The employee failed to provide information requested to supplement his request for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), exhausted his vacation time, was discharged for insubordination, and applied for benefits through a plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. The administrator denied the claim because the plan specifically excludes discharge for insubordination. A review committee affirmed. The district court entered summary judgment upholding the denial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the administrator was not required to go beyond the language of the plan and determine whether the termination violated FMLA. The administrator did not have the ability to resolve the FMLA claim between the employee and employer and it is irrelevant that the review committee made some effort to consider the FMLA issue.

The government sought an injunction under the child labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. 201-219, based on the boarding school's use of uncompensated minors in its kitchen and housekeeping departments, agricultural operations, auto repair shop, Sanitarium, and other operations. The district court concluded that the students are not employees and, therefore, not subject to the Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court rejected the school's claim that students in a vocational program can never be considered employees and the government's argument that the test of whether "trainees" are employees should apply, and applied a "primary benefit" test. The school staff is sufficient to perform the work even if the students did not work and the school is not at competitive advantage with respect to the work; the students benefit from hands-on training in an accredited program that is run consistently with their parents' religious beliefs.

A pilot claimed that his employer subjected him to harassment and retaliation because he raised safety issues. His application for a position as an initial operating experience instructor was rejected and he filed a grievance. The Systems Board of Adjustment found no violation of the collective bargaining agreement, but the employer nonetheless interviewed the pilot for the position. After he was rejected for the stated reason of lack of international qualifications, the pilot unsuccessfully filed another grievance. While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was investigating a claim of retaliation (49 U.S.C. 42121), the employer learned that the pilot had secretly taped hundreds of conversations and put him on administrative leave. The OSHA hearing officer and review board ruled in favor of the employer. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that substantial evidence supported a conclusion that the pilot would not have been promoted even absent his safety and regulatory reports. Although the pilot engaged in protected activity and suffered an adverse employment action, the employer provided evidence of the point system by which it evaluated candidates, that it had an interest in international experience, and that the pilot did not interview well. Any incorrect evidentiary rulings constituted harmless error.

Whitfield, blind in one eye and suffering cerebral palsy, began working as a secretary with the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities and was fired less than six months later. The trial court dismissed her suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court first held that a claim for reinstatement survived Eleventh Amendment immunity and determined that Whitfield had waived any possible claims under the "public services" provisions of the ADA. The court rejected an argument that the trial court applied incorrect standards with respect to Whitfield's burden of proof under the Act's employment discrimination provisions, finding that Whitfield failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to any disability discrimination. There was overwhelming evidence of poor work and many of Whitfield's failings were unrelated to her disabilities.