Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Feldman worked the day shift at Olin. Because of fibromyalgia and sleep apnea, his doctors had advised him to work regular day positions, without rotation and overtime. When Olin realigned its workforce, causing Feldman’s position to require rotating shifts, he tried to work under the new regime for a few weeks, but found it impossible. When he presented Olin with a medical restriction, Olin laid him off. It did not place him in a different position, claiming that no positions were available that did not require overtime or flextime. When a straight-day position opened Feldman successfully bid for it. Since then, Feldman has continued working at the plant. Feldman sued, alleging that failure to offer a reasonable accommodation in the form of a straight-day shift, without overtime, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12111 and that, once he returned to work, Olin retaliated against him for having filed administrative complaints. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Feldman can prevail if genuinely disputed points are resolved in his favor: whether he is “disabled” under the ADA, and whether he is “qualified” to work certain positions. Feldman’s retaliation claims were properly dismissed for lack of evidence that adverse employment actions were caused by protected conduct. View "Feldman v. Olin Corp." on Justia Law

More than 50 times, 2002-2005, May, a pipefitter at Chrysler’s plant, was the target of racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic graffiti. Messages included: “Otto Cuban good Jew is a dead Jew,” and “fuck Otto Cuban Jew nigger lover.” May found several death-threat notes in his toolbox and had his bike and car tires punctured. Sugar was poured in the gas tanks of his cars and a dead bird wrapped to look like a Ku Klux Klansman was placed in his work station. May contacted police and the FBI and complained to Chrysler. Human resources met with tradesmen and reminded them that harassment was unacceptable, a procedure was implemented to document the harassment, efforts were made to discover who was at the plant when the incidents likely occurred, and a handwriting analyst was retained. The harasser was never caught. May sued Chrysler in 2002 under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. Only 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 and the court vacated the award of punitive damages. The Seventh Circuit The district court affirmed on liability, but reversed for reinstatement of the verdict. View "May v. Chrysler Grp., LLC" on Justia Law

Coleman was fired from the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center. Coleman was told that his position had been eliminated by budget cuts; he contends that his politics were the real cause for his discharge and a decision not to rehire him. Coleman’s job is not in the category for which politics is a legitimate consideration. Coleman sought damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and invoked the Shakman consent decrees, which allow parties aggrieved by certain Cook County patronage to bring civil contempt proceedings. The district judge dismissed the civil rights claim but declined to dismiss the Shakman claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Dunlap is not protected by absolute immunity pursuant to the order under which he was appointed. In 2002 the Juvenile Detention Center and inmates settled a case; the court retained jurisdiction and in 2007 appointed Dunlap as administrator in an order, stating that Dunlap would have immunity: “[Dunlap] and his staff shall have the status of officers and agents of this Court and as such shall be vested with the same immunities as vest with this Court.” Dunlap’s decisions were administrative, not judicial. The order did not direct adoption of any particular personnel plan nor direct specific employment decisions. View "Coleman v. Dunlap" on Justia Law

Multiemployer pension plans are created by collective bargaining agreements to provide benefits to employees of different firms. When an employer withdraws from an MPP, the plan remains liable to employees who have vested pension rights, but can no longer look to the employer to cover these obligations. The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461, assesses the employer with an exit price equal to its pro rata share of the funding shortfall (difference between present value of fund assets and present value of future obligations). Estimating the shortfall depends on estimating the amount by which current assets can be expected to grow with compound interest. To avoid having an employer new to a plan inherit withdrawal liability where existing members failed to fund the plan adequately in prior years, the statute creates default rules for assigning each employer a share of only so much of the shortfall as occurred while the employer was participating, 29 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2)-(4). Disputes about withdrawal liability are resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator in this case ruled that MMP trustees had over-assessed CPC’s withdrawal liability by $1,093,000. The district judge upheld the ruling. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting the “Hideous complexities” involved and its own lack of expertise. View "Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers, & Warehouse Workers Union (Indep.) Pension Fund v. CPC Logistics, Inc." on Justia Law

Levin worked as an Illinois Assistant Attorney General from 2000, until his termination in 2006. Levin was over the age of 60 at the time of his termination and believes he was fired because of his age and gender. He was replaced by a woman in her 30s. He brought claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment via 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied a motion to dismiss the individual-capacity defendants on grounds of qualified immunity with respect to Levin’s section 1983 age discrimination claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. At the time of the alleged wrongdoing, it was clearly established that age discrimination in employment violates the Equal Protection Clause. Although age is not a suspect classification, states may not discriminate on that basis if such discrimination is not “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Whether the ADEA is the exclusive remedy for plaintiffs suffering age discrimination in employment is irrelevant; a constitutional right was clearly established. View "Levin v. Madigan" on Justia Law

ITT is a for-profit corporation that runs “ITT Technical Institutes” throughout the country, including Lathrop, California. Halasa was the Lathrop Campus’s College Director for six months in 2009. ITT says that Halasa was fired for poor management skills and delivering inadequate results; Halasa alleges that he was fired in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h), after identifying and reporting several irregularities in the way ITT was handling its federally subsidized loans and grants for students. The district court granted ITT summary judgment and costs. Even if Halasa did engage in protected conduct under the Act, he did not establish that he was fired because of this conduct. There was no evidence that decision-makers were made aware of his reporting. View "Halasa v. ITT Educational Servs., Inc" on Justia Law

Nicholson was a sales associate for Pulte, a national homebuilder. When she failed to make her sales quotas for several months in a row, Pulte put her on a performance-improvement plan and later fired her when her sales did not improve. Nicholson claimed that her termination was related to her need to care for her ailing parents and sued under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, alleging that the company interfered with her statutory rights and retaliated against her in violation of the Act. The district court granted summary judgment for Pulte. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Nicholson did not put Pulte on adequate notice that she needed FMLA-qualifying leave to care for her parents. At most, she made a few casual comments to her supervisors about her parents’ ill health. At the time the decision to terminate her employment was made, she had asked for only a single day off to attend a doctor’s appointment with her father, which her supervisor allowed. View "Nicholson v. Pulte Homes Corp." on Justia Law

In 2000, TIN hired Pagel as an outside salesman. The position allows flexibility in scheduling sales calls. In 2006, Pagel began reporting to Kremer and was, for the first time, given performance evaluations. Kremer requested daily sales and two-week itinerary reports. Pagel experienced chest pain and labored breathing, and visited physicians in July 2006. Tests revealed a blockage in his heart. On August 24, Kremer met with Pagel to discuss his declining performance. On August 29, Pagel was admitted to the hospital for angioplasty and stent placement. The following week, Pagel’s symptoms returned and he was re-admitted. A CT scan revealed an unrelated mass in his lung. Pagel claims each absence was covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, and that he gave Kremer prior notification of each absence. While Pagel was in a clinic for a PET scan, Kremer called to say that he wanted to do a ride-along the next day. Pagel hastily attempted to schedule calls for September 19. The day went badly, Paget was terminated. The district court entered summary judgment for the company, rejecting claims under the FLMA. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that issues of material fact remained unresolved. View "Pagel v. TIN Inc." on Justia Law

Magnus was hired by the church in 2006 to work evenings and weekends. When the church was unwilling to accommodate her request to not work weekends, so that she could be with her daughter, who otherwise resided in an assisted living facility, Magnus alleged associational discrimination under the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(4). The church presented evidence that it terminated Magnus because of unsatisfactory performance and refusal to work weekends. The district court ruled in favor of the church. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.. Magnus’s true complaint is that the church, by mandating she work weekends, failed to accommodate her need to care for her disabled daughter. The ADA does not require employers to reasonably accommodate employees who do not themselves have a disability. View "Magnus v. St. Mark United Methodist Church" on Justia Law

Walsh is a nationwide builder; superintendents have discretion over hiring and pay of hourly workers. Walsh has rules against racial discrimination but superintendents are generally in charge. Plaintiffs worked for Walsh in 2002 and earlier and claimed that superintendents practiced, or tolerated, racial discrimination. Plaintiffs submitted a statistics indicating that black workers were less likely to work overtime; contended that some superintendents used words such as “nigger” or failed to prevent journeymen from doing so; and claimed that derogatory graffiti appeared in toilets or break sheds. Walsh claims that these were the work of subcontractors’ employees and that sites had different superintendents whose practices differed. The district court certified hostile work environment and overtime classes for the 262 Walsh sites in the Chicago area. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The 12 named plaintiffs cannot represent either class, since none worked for Walsh after 2002, but the classes extend into the indefinite future. The overtime class defined members as persons who did not earn more “because of their race.” Using a future decision on the merits to specify the scope of the class makes it impossible to determine who is in the class until the case ends. Plaintiffs may choose to propose site- or superintendent-specific classes. View "Bolden v. Walsh Constr. Co." on Justia Law