Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Johnson filed an employment discrimination claim against Chicago public schools. The district court granted her motion to proceed in forma pauperis and set a date for a status hearing, warning Johnson that failure to appear could result in immediate dismissal. Johnson did not appear; the judge dismissed her suit. Johnson immediately moved to reinstate, claiming that she had not been notified of the hearing. The judge denied the motion, noting that Johnson had agreed to receive electronic notice of orders and decisions. The court had provided electronic notice of the dismissal, an order Johnson admittedly received. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that the trial judge had not explained why a single missed conference produced immediate dismissal; “the punishment must fit the crime.” View "Johnson v. Chicago Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

Gomberg briefly represented Goyal in 2004 settlement negotiations with a former employer over his claims of retaliation for whistle-blowing and gave Goyal’s employer notice of an attorney lien on any settlement or judgment. The negotiations did not produce an agreement; Goyal later retained new counsel to pursue litigation. In 2009, without the aid of any counsel, Goyal settled with his former employer. After Goyal settled, Gomberg reappeared and demanded a share. The employer paid a portion of the settlement to Gomberg. The district court granted Goyal’s motion to quash the lien, effectively ordering Gomberg to pay Goyal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that Gomberg is not entitled to any part of the settlement funds Goyal secured and that “Gomberg’s professional conduct is questionable.” His position that he “secured” funds for Goyal when the opposing party made an unacceptable and unaccepted settlement offer is unreasonable to the point of being frivolous and possibly warranting sanctions. Gomberg’s assertion of a lien for $70,000 was far greater than 10 percent of even the employer’s unaccepted (and not yet made) offer of $375,000 and was without basis. View "Goyal v. Gas Tech. Inst." on Justia Law

Hakim was an Accenture employee for nearly 10 years before being let go as part of a workforce reduction. During part of his tenure with the company, he participated in the company’s pension plan. In 1996, Accenture amended the plan to exclude a number of employees in various departments. In 1999, Hakim was promoted to a position in which he was no longer eligible to participate in the plan under the terms of the 1996 amendment. Upon his 2003 termination, at age 39, Hakim signed a release in exchange for separation benefits that waived all claims that arose prior to signing the release. In 2008, while employed elsewhere, Hakim sought additional pension benefits from Accenture, arguing that the notice of the 1996 amendment to the plan (which was emailed to employees) was insufficient and violated ERISA’s notice requirements, 29 U.S.C. 1054(h). His claim was denied by Accenture. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Accenture, holding that Hakim knew or should have known about his claim when he signed the release, and thus waived his claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Hakim v. Accenture U.S. Pension Plan" on Justia Law

From 1996 to 2003, Harbaugh worked periodically for Chicago Public Schools as a substitute music teacher. In 2003, she was hired as a “full-time basis substitute,” and tin 2004 she was appointed to a fulltime probationary tenure-track teaching position. In 2008, the principal at Harbaugh’s school recommended against renewing her contract. The Chicago Board of Education accepted that recommendation and terminated her appointment effective at the end of the semester. Harbaugh sued, alleging violation of her due-process rights by terminating her employment without a hearing. The district court entered summary judgment for the Board. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Under Illinois law Harbaugh had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment only if she had tenure; a teacher becomes tenured at the beginning of her fifth year of full-time employment on the tenure track. Her year as a full-time-basis substitute teacher does not count toward the four-year requirement. View "Harbaugh v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Between 2002 and 2005, May, a Chrysler pipefitter, was the target of graffiti in and around the plant’s paint department. Messages stated: “Otto Cuban Jew fag die,” “Otto Cuban good Jew is a dead Jew,” “death to the Cuban Jew,” “fuck Otto Cuban Jew fag,” “get the Cuban Jew,” and “fuck Otto Cuban Jew nigger lover.” May found death-threat notes in his toolbox, had his tires punctured, had sugar poured in the gas tanks of his cars, and found a dead bird wrapped in toilet paper to look like a Ku Klux Klansman in his work station. May contacted the police, the FBI, the Anti-Defamation League, and complained to Chrysler. Chrysler responded: The head of human resources informed employees that harassment was unacceptable, a procedure was implemented to document harassment, efforts were made to discover who was present when the incidents occurred, and a handwriting analyst was retained. The offenders were never caught. May sued Chrysler, alleging violations under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. His hostile work environment claim survived summary judgment. A jury awarded $709,000 in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages. May accepted remittitur to $300,000; the court vacated the award of punitive damages. On rehearing, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "May v. Chrysler Group LLC" on Justia Law

Basden was hired as a PTI dispatcher in 2007, subject to an attendance policy that did not differentiate between absences for medical reasons and other absences. Basden had two absentee incidents in 2007. In January 2008, Basden became dizzy and fell in her home. A CT scan suggested that she might have multiple sclerosis. She was considered to have five absence incidents following her fall, prompting a verbal warning. Absences in April were treated as a sixth incident, resulting in a written warning. She began to feel numbness in her hands she asked to be relieved of assignments that required additional typing. The company moved her back to dispatcher, but eventually returned her to the typing duties. At her request, Basden was moved to a part-time position. Basden was absent again in May and was suspended for three days. Her request for leave was denied and she did not return to work. Her employment was terminated. In her suit under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, the district court found that Basden had failed to establish a prima facie right to the protection of either statute and granted PTI summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Basden v. Prof'l Transp., Inc." on Justia Law

Dr. Dookeran was hired by Stroger Hospital of Cook County in 2000 subject to biennial reappointment. His 2004 application for reappointment disclosed for the first time that his previous employer had reprimanded him for creating a hostile work environment. This disclosure triggered an investigation and peer review. An administrative committee revoked Dookeran’s staff privileges, and the Cook County Board denied reappointment. The Illinois Appellate Court upheld the denial of reappointment and the Illinois Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. In the meantime, Dookeran filed charges of employment discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the denial was denied based on race and national origin and retaliation for an earlier EEOC charge. After a long delay, Dookeran received an EEOC right-to-sue letter and sued in federal court under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court rejected a jurisdictional argument but dismissed the claims as barred by res judicata. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to preclude subject-matter jurisdiction. Dookeran had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his federal claims in the state-court proceedings. View "Dookeran v. Cook County" on Justia Law

The CEO and sole shareholder of Zee decided to expand his chemical sales business into the water treatment industry and hired employees who were currently working or had previously worked in the industry. Four employees came from GE and were bound by non-compete agreements. GE sued Zee and its former employees in North Carolina state court for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and unfair trade practices. The state court found the agreements enforceable and held Zee and the employees jointly and severally liable for $288,297.00 in compensatory damages as a result of unfair and deceptive trade practices and for $5,769,903.10 in attorney fees, $864,891.00 in punitive damages, and $257,931.44 in costs. GE discovered that Zee had tied up virtually all of its assets in a credit facility agreement with BMO Harris Bank before entry of judgment; registered the judgment in Illinois, Harris’s principal place of business; and served Harris with a citation to discover Zee’s assets. GE objected to removal to federal court, but the district court dismissed GE’s case entirely. The Seventh Circuit vacated, finding that GE raised a timely and sound objection to removal under the forum-defendant rule, and the district court should have remanded the case. View "GE Betz, Inc. v. Zee Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Smiley was a part-time instructor in the college’s Radio Department from 1994 through January 2009. She is of Palestinian and Lebanese descent. Near the end of the fall 2008 semester, one of the nine students in Smiley’s class met with two faculty members and said he felt Smiley had singled him out in class because he is Jewish. At one of the faculty members’ request, the student outlined his complaint in an email. Faculty members and administrators interviewed the student on several occasions and also interviewed Smiley, who asserted that she was “joking.” The school ultimately informed Smiley that it would not ask her to teach further classes. Smiley claimed that the decision was based on her race or national origin in a suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the college. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Investigations of other instructors to which Smiley referred do not suggest more favorable treatment. The school’s procedures did not require the school to contact other witnesses to alleged discriminatory conduct, and the school’s investigation of the complaint does not indicate that its reason for terminating her position was pretextual. View "Smiley v. Columbia College Chicago" on Justia Law

Under the Federal Mine Safety & Health Act of 1977, the Secretary of Labor protects the health and safety of miners, acting through the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Regulations under the Act require mine operators to report all mine-related injuries and illnesses suffered by employees. In 2010, MSHA acted on a new and broader interpretation and informed 39 mine operators that they would be required to permit MSHA inspectors to review employee medical and personnel records during inspections. Two operators refused to provide the records. MSHA issued citations and imposed penalties. An ALJ and the Review Commission found that the demands and enforcement were lawful under 30 U.S.C. 813(h) and 30 C.F.R. 50.41. Mine employees intervened to raise personal privacy challenges. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, rejecting arguments that MSHA does not have authority for the requirement; that 30 C.F.R. 50.41 is not a reasonable interpretation of the Act and was not properly promulgated; that the requirement infringes operators’ Fourth Amendment right not to be searched without a warrant; that the demands violate the miners’ Fourth Amendment privacy rights in their medical records; and that penalties imposed for noncompliance violate the operators’ Fifth Amendment due process rights. View "Bickett v. Fed. Mine Safety & Review Comm'n" on Justia Law