Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

In 2007, CSI entered into a contract with Sunrise to install carpets, countertops, flooring, and wall tiles at a new condominium within the geographical jurisdiction of the union’s Local 13. Though CSI was not a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement with Local 13, most other workers at the job site were union members. The union became aware that Sunrise was using non-unionized workers and began picketing and a strike. A union organizer stated that Sunrise should get rid of CSI and that if it used CSI on other job sites in the future, Local 13 would set up pickets at those jobs as well. Due to the threat, Sunrise canceled another contract and moved CSI workers to night hours at the condominium project. CSI’s president claims that the union organizer attacked him at the job site and brought claims for lost profits, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair labor practices (secondary pressure) under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 187. The district court ruled in favor of defendants Regional Council, Local 13, and the union organizer on all counts. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Carpet Serv. Int'l, Inc. v. Chicago Reg'l Council of Carpenters" on Justia Law

Naficy began working for IDHS in 1996. According to Naficy, her co-worker and eventual supervisor, Bailey, mocked her accent and suggested that Naficy should not have been promoted because she is Iranian. Naficy filed complaints of discrimination, relating to treatment during a layoff and unfavorable performance evaluations. In 2010, in connection with closure of another facility, IDHS followed provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. Naficy and others received a letter alerting them to the possibility of a layoff and outlining potential bump options. Naficy was reassigned to a part-time position; she returned to her former position with the same schedule and salary two months later. Naficy filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging that the reassignment was discriminatory and retaliatory. She received a right-to-sue letter and filed suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court dismissed the claims, reasoning that as a state agency, IDHS is not a “person” amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and that Naficy had no direct evidence of discrimination by anyone involved in her reassignment, of retaliation, or of a similarly situated IDHS employee who received better treatment than Naficy. The Seventh Circuit affirmed View "Naficy v. IL Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

In 2005 brokers sued Merrill Lynch under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII raising claims of racial discrimination and seeking to litigate as a class. They alleged that the firm’s “teaming” and account-distribution policies had the effect of steering black brokers away from the most lucrative assignments and prevented them from earning compensation comparable to white brokers. That litigation is ongoing. Three years later, Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch, and the companies introduced a retention-incentive program that would pay bonuses to Merrill Lynch brokers corresponding to their previous levels of production. Brokers filed a second class-action suit. The district court dismissed. The court held that the retention program qualified as a production-based compensation system within the meaning of the section 703(h) exemption and was protected from challenge unless it was adopted with “intention to discriminate because of race.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(h). The court then held that the complaint’s allegations of discriminatory intent were conclusory. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It is not enough to allege that the bonuses incorporated the past discriminatory effects of Merrill Lynch’s underlying employment practices. The disparate impact of those employment practices is the subject of the first lawsuit, and if proven, will be remedied there. View "McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc." on Justia Law

In 2003, the airline established guidelines that address accommodating employees who, because of disability, can no longer do essential functions of their current jobs, even with reasonable accommodation. The guidelines specify that the transfer process is competitive, so that an employee in need of accommodation will not be automatically placed into a vacant position, but will be given preference over similarly qualified applicants. The EEOC challenged the policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. The district court ruled in favor of the airline. On rehearing, en banc, the Seventh Circuit reversed and held that the ADA does mandate that an employer appoint employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to that employer. The court concluded that contrary precedent did not survive in light of U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002). View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. United Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Filus, a 50-year-old former truck driver, has twice applied for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming that back problems have left him incapable of gainful employment. An administrative law judge concluded that Filus could perform some light work and denied his most recent application. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supports the denial. The ALJ adequately considered Filus’s testimony about the limiting effects of his pain along with his testimony that he regularly completed his daily household activities without any pain medication, not even over-the-counter products.View "Filus v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Beatty injured his back on the job at Olin’s manufacturing plant. At the direction of Olin’s medical department, he was evaluated by his physician, who instructed him to remain off of work for a week. He gave that doctor’s note to the medical department. With the exception of two days of light duty, he did not report for work for the next six weeks. He eventually got a retroactive medical excuse from his doctor, but Olin’s medical department sought an independent examination, anticipating a workers’ compensation claim. In the meantime, a clerk told Olin’s labor-relations manager that Beatty had not been at work for several weeks and had not called in. Olin’s policy requires employees to call in daily if they cannot come to work; failure to call in for three workdays in a row is grounds for termination. Based on Beatty’s noncompliance with the policy, the labor-relations manager terminated his employment. Beatty later filed a workers’ compensation claim, which eventually settled. He then sued for retaliatory discharge. The district court granted summary judgment for Olin. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the manager who made the termination decision was entirely unaware of Beatty’s status vis-á-vis Olin’s medical department. View "Beatty v. Olin Corp." on Justia Law

Couch was employed as a truck driver by B&B, a private company that has Highway Contract Route contracts with the Postal Service. While Couch was making a delivery to a postal facility in Illinois, a U.S. Postal Service employee ran over his foot with a forklift. Two years later, Couch died, allegedly as a result of complications from the injury. After her husband died, plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which provides a cause of action for personal injuries negligently caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1). The district court granted the United States summary judgment, finding that Couch was a “borrowed employee,” so that workers’ compensation would provide Couch’s only remedy against both the borrowing and lending employers. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The private trucking company does not merely “lend employees” to the Postal Service but provides mail transportation and delivery services. The company trains, equips, pays, and supervises its own employees using its own equipment to provide these services. View "Couch v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2009, George, a vice president of JA, discovered that money withheld from his pay was not being deposited into his retirement account and health savings account. He complained to JA’s accountants and executives, including Burk. He contacted the Department of Labor but declined to file a complaint. He raised the issue with board members, then received checks for $2,600 for the missed deposits plus interest. His employment agreement ran until June 30, 2010, but he had discussed, with Burk and others, retiring in April 2010. On January 4, 2010, Burk told George not to return to work. Burk later discovered that George had drawn down the account containing his deferred compensation. J A concedes that George was entitled to withdraw the funds, but it did not rescind his discharge. George claimed violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1104(a) and retaliation for reporting that violation. The district court granted JA summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit vacated. An employee’s grievance is within ERISA’s scope of protection against retaliation whether or not the employer solicited information. George notified JA of the potential breach of its fiduciary duties and asked what would be done. Those conversations involved an “inquiry.” View "George v. Jr. Achievement of Cent. IN, Inc." on Justia Law

Trinity terminated Dr. Assaf’s employment in 2009t. Assaf filed suit for breach of contract. While the case was pending, Assaf negotiated with Trinity’s new CEO, Tibbitts, Apparently without attorneys, Assaf and Tibbitts signed an agreement that provided that Assaf would receive a salary of $50,000 each year from 2009 to 2011. After that, his employment would automatically renew for a year unless either party gave notice of termination. Trinity refused to honor the agreement. The district court decided to enforce the agreement, but granted Trinity’s motion to bar any evidence of Assaf’s lost professional fees. Trinity never re-employed Assaf, claiming that “there is a policy against ordering specific performance of a personal services contract.” The court ordered Trinity to reinstate Assaf. Rather than reinstating Assaf, Trinity filed a “motion to clarify or stay.” The court reversed its earlier order, proceeded, without trial, to award Assaf his salary for the years 2009 through 2011, attorney’s fees, and compensatory damages. The court did not award any amount in lost professional fees. The Seventh Circuit reversed, declining to address specific performance because Trinity properly reterminated Assaf in 2011. The district court abused its discretion in barring evidence of lost professional fees. View "Assaf v. Trinity Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Capeheart is a tenured Justice Studies professor at Northeastern Illinois University and an outspoken critic of the university on a number of issues, including its failure to hire more Latino professors and its willingness to host military and CIA recruiters at campus job fairs. She claims that university officials have defamed her, refused to make her department chair, and denied her an award (among other things) because of her speech. In her 42 U.S.C. l983 claim, she sued University President Hahs and Provost Frank, asking for an injunction against future retaliation, and damages under Illinois law. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. The Seventh Circuit remanded with instructions to dismiss the federal claims as unripe. The prospect of retaliation by Hahs or Frank is no more than conjecture. The district court incorrectly reached the merits of Capeheart’s federal claim. View "Capeheart v. Terrell" on Justia Law