Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

In 1997, Warf began working for Veterans Affairs as a program assistant to the Chief of Psychology. In 2004, a specialist from Human Resources performed an audit and concluded that Warf was performing duties that warranted GS-7 status on the government pay scale, a step higher than her GS-6 status. Between 2004 and 2008, Warf requested promotions, but nothing happened. In 2008 Warf filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The director retroactively promoted Warf and she received back pay. Warf was subsequently denied a promotion and brought claims of hostile work environment, gender discrimination, retaliation, and Equal Pay Act violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000(e), and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1). The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the department. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Warf provided no any evidence that she and DeLong (who got the promotion) performed substantially similar jobs. Warf’s position was that of an administrative assistant, which did not encompass any education or training responsibilities. There is a significant difference between DeLong, who held a master’s degree in business and had seven years of experience teaching, and Warf, who was working towards her bachelor’s degree. View "Warf v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

In 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency sued Michigan, Detroit, and the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department for exceeding effluent limitations and failing to satisfy monitoring requirements under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251. In 1977, the district court entered an initial Consent Judgment. Over the next 30 years, the DWSD fell in and out of compliance. In the most recent round of violations and court orders, the district judge gave a committee of local officials 60 days to fashion a final plan or face more intrusive court-ordered remedies. The judge adopted most of the committee’s recommendations but also directly abrogated some provisions in collective bargaining agreements of approximately 20 different bargaining units. None of the DWSD unions were parties. Unions sought to intervene. The district court denied the motions as untimely. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Although the unions were aware of the potential significance of the proceedings and failed to intervene before the court-approved committee returned its recommendations, total denial of intervention was an abuse of discretion. The unions have substantial interests at stake that “may as a practical matter” be impaired absent intervention. While concerns of delay and re-litigation are serious, they can be alleviated by limiting the scope of intervention. View "Unted States v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

Howard has been employed as an underground face coal miner with CRCC since 2005 and has filed seven prior discrimination complaints under the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(1), alleging that: CRCC assigned him undesirable jobs because of his demanding nature; CRCC reduced the workforce to fabricate justifications to terminate him; and CRCC failed to protect his truck from vandalism in the parking lot. After Howard suffered an injury at work, CRCC fired him, stating that restrictions imposed by a physician made him unable to perform any job available at CRCC. An ALJ found discrimination and that the justification was pretextual. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission denied review. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Howard’s seven-percent impairment was found to be minimal and unthreatening for his continued employment at the coal mine by all of his treating physicians; only after CRCC sent an overbroad job description and a brief clarification questionnaire did on doctor find that Howard should not return to work. View "Cumberland River Coal Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n" on Justia Law

Former employees of AK Steel filed a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), including claims for a “whipsaw” calculation of their benefits from a pension plan in which they participated before terminating their employment. The employees were originally involved in a related class action that included identical claims against the same defendants, but were excluded from that litigation due to their execution of a severance agreement and release that each of them signed during the that litigation. The district court ruled in favor of the employees. The Sixth Circuit reversed an award of prejudgment interest for failure to consider case-specific factors, but otherwise affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss; class certification; and partial summary judgment on liability. The employees’s future pension claims were not released as a matter of law because the whipsaw claims had not accrued at the time of the execution of the severance agreements and because the scope of the contracts did not relate to future ERISA claims. View "Schumacher v. AK Steel Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, 91 current and former special investigators (SIs) employed by Nationwide Mutual Insurance claimed that Nationwide improperly classified SIs as administrative employees exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 207 and 213(a)(1)) and analogous provisions of New York and California law. The district court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Nationwide, then ruled in the company’s favor following trial on other issues. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. A reference to investigators, 29 C.F.R. 541.3(b)(1), read in context, pertains to law enforcement and public safety personnel and not to the Sis employed by Nationwide. Plaintiffs perform work “directly related” to Nationwide’s “general business operations.” The district court properly found that their investigations, with the purpose of resolving the indicators of fraud and the legitimacy of the suspicious claims, are unlike the narrower more formulaic background investigations into facts and records that have been found to not involve the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. View "Foster v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co" on Justia Law

In 1999, Geraldine Fuhr successfully sued to be instated as varsity boys basketball coach at Hazel Park High School, where she had been employed as varsity girls basketball coach. For five years she coached both teams. In 2006, she was removed from her position coaching varsity girls basketball. She claims that her dismissal as the varsity girls basketball coach and other acts of harassment were a result of her 1999 suit. The district court granted the district summary judgment, rejecting claims of retaliation (42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a)), gender discrimination, and hostile work environment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting a substantial time gap between the suit and the complained-of actions and the district’s complained-of actions were not discriminatory. View "Fuhr v. Hazel Park Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In October 2008, Deputy Kuhn, a black man, stopped Joseph, a white woman for a traffic violation. Joseph falsely reported that Kuhn had raped her during the stop. An internal investigation into the allegation was not closed until January 2009. Several months after the investigation closed, Kuhn requested medical leave based on stress. Kuhn eventually took approximately seven months of paid and unpaid leave that did not end until he was terminated in January 2010. He filed suit against the county, and his superior. Against the county only, Kuhn asserted claims for termination without due process of law, violation of Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws 15.361, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. Kuhn asserted a claim against his superior only for tortious interference with business expectancy. Against both, Kuhn asserted racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, racial discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII, and racial discrimination and harassment in violation of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws 37.2101. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants on all claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Kuhn v. County of Washtenaw" on Justia Law

While working at a Ford Motor plant, Rudisill was hit in the face by a piece of equipment, was knocked against a wall, fell to the floor, and rolled forward through the floor opening into the hot pit below. He lay there unconscious, being burned, until coworkers pulled him out of the pit. Rudisill had gained consciousness by this time and was screaming in pain. Rudisill sustained a head injury that required several staples to close. He was also burned on his arms and legs, abdomen, and left hand. Rudisill continues to experience pain, dizzy spells, ringing in the ears, and memory problems. He has had numerous surgeries and has undergone physical and occupational therapy. After a safety review immediately following the incident, Ford decided to modify the process so that employees slide metal grates over the pit before removing the guard rails. After receiving workers’ compensation benefits, Rudisill sued Ford, alleging intentional tort; his wife asserted a derivative claim of loss of consortium. The district court granted summary judgment for Ford. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding insufficient evidence that Ford acted with deliberate intent to injure Rudisill, as required by Ohio statute. View "Rudisill v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a teacher since 1976, was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. By 1999, she required insulin injections. Until 2008, plaintiff was never disciplined. In 2008, plaintiff was summoned to address allegations that she had been sleeping during class. Plaintiff claimed that she was not sleeping but rather exhibiting symptoms of diabetes. She was formally reprimanded and requested accommodations: training in recognizing symptoms of diabetes; assistance if she appeared asleep; and breaks for insulin injections. The superintendent allowed her to keep snacks in her classroom, to use the nurse’s office if she first obtained classroom coverage, and to disseminate diabetes information to students and staff. Plaintiff was subsequently suspended for missing classes, sleeping in class, and referring to Playgirl Magazine in class discussion. The Board decided to terminate her contract. Plaintiff was 71 years old. A referee upheld the termination. Instead of appealing, plaintiff filed suit, alleging age discrimination under Ohio law; failure to make reasonable accommodations (ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12112, and state law); retaliation for engaging in protected activity (ADA and state law); and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to age discrimination, but reversed on other claims. View "Smith v. Perkins Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

Pagliara, a licensed securities broker for more than 25 years, maintained a spotless record with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) except for this case. Under a 2002 licensing agreement, Pagliara served both Capital Trust and NBC until 2008. During that time, Butler followed Pagliara’s recommendation to invest $100,000 in bank stocks that later lost value. Butler’s attorney threatened to sue NBC and Pagliara. NBC retained JBPR for defense. Unbeknownst to NBC and JBPR, Pagliara offered to settle the claim for $14,900, $100 below FINRA’s mandatory reporting threshold. Butler refused. Pagliara then informed NBC of his intent to defend the claim in FINRA Arbitration and objected to any settlement of the “frivolous claim.” NBC insisted that Pagliara not have any contact with Butler, based on the License Agreement signed by the parties, which stated that: “NBCS, at its sole option and without the prior approval of either [Capital Trust] or the applicable Representative, may settle or compromise any claim at any time.” JBPR finalized a $30,000 settlement without obtaining a release for Pagliara. Pagliara sued, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and intentional infliction of harm. The district court rejected the claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Pagliara v. Johnston Barton Proctor & Rose, LLP" on Justia Law