Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The union represents housekeepers at a hotel owned by the village. After the union staged a mock funeral procession on the premises, police blocked efforts to stage a second protest on August 31, 2009. After the union filed suit, it was denied permission to distribute pamphlets at the entry to the hotel (November incident). The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the village. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the record clearly indicated that the union had dropped its claims with respect to the August 31 demonstration. At the time of the summary judgment motion, the union had not attempted to file a supplementary pleading to cover the November incident.

Former captains from the Illinois Department of Corrections sued state and union officials, alleging that the defendants unlawfully punished them for seeking to organize with a rival union. The district court entered summary for the defendants, including a decision that the governor was protected by immunity. The governor's line-item veto of funding for captains' positions was legislative in nature and, therefore, protected by immunity and the plaintiffs failed to tie the governor to any allegedly-retaliatory actions before or after the veto. The decision to eliminate the middle management position at issue was a policy decision, unlike hiring or firing a particular individual, regardless of the subsequent creation of a new, similar position. The captains did not show how deposing the governor or more extensive deposition of the deputy chief of staff would lead to relevant evidence on the immunity issue. That two unions were competing to represent the captains did not establish a conspiracy between one of the unions and the administration with respect to determining the seniority of captains who took positions as corrections officers after their positions were eliminated.

The EEOC conducted a preliminary investigation, following a complaint filed by an African-American salesman who was fired after eight months, and discovered possible pattern of discrimination in hiring as well as in treatment of employees. The company refused to comply with an EEOC subpoena for information about hiring practices. The district court entered an order enforcing the subpoena. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the requested material is relevant to the investigation and to the EEOC's authority and would not impose an undue burden on the company.

The plaintiff stopped working in November, 2005, due to a variety of ailments, and filed a disability claim in August, 2007. The claim was denied in September. The plaintiff's appeal, received in April, 2008, 11 days after the stated 180-day deadline, was denied. She filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132. A magistrate upheld the denial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The plan has a clear deadline; the plaintiff was not denied meaningful access to review procedures and did not allege that pursuing administrative remedies would be futile. The court rejected a "substantial compliance" argument, noting that the plaintiff did not offer an explanation for the late filing. The Plan was not required to show prejudice as a result of the delay to justify rejecting the claim. Letters sent by the plaintiff could not reasonably be construed as notice of appeal. The Plan has procedures to minimize conflicts of interest and its refusal to consider the appeal was not arbitrary.

A former high school teacher and union president was fired for allegedly viewing pornography on school computers. The district court rejected claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, based on an assertion that the firing was retaliation for union activity. Before terminating the teacher's employment, the school district held an open hearing at which the teacher was allowed to present evidence and witnesses. He did not refute the charges, but only issued an apology; he has had all of the process he is due. With respect to First Amendment retaliation claims, the court stated that the relationship between the union and the district was "contentious, combative, and miserable," but that the district had an independent, legitimate reason for the termination.

A recent retiree (employee) unsuccessfully tried to enroll her adult dependent child in the medical plan. The district court found the plan administrator's decision to be in violation of ERISA and imposed penalties. The Seventh Circuit vacated in part and remanded to allow the plan administrator to make a decision under the correct contract language. The denial was incorrectly based on a version of the plan in effect at the time of application, rather than that in effect when the employee's ability to comply with a condition precedent to enrollment expired, but the language of the earlier plan was ambiguous and the evidence of the employee's compliance was unclear. The court affirmed an award of a $3,780 for failure to timely comply with the employee's first request for documents, but reversed a penalty of $11,440 for a second request, calling for documents that were not essential to the claim. The court remanded an award of attorney fees, stating outcome was "some success on the merits" for the employee but that the plan's position was not without merit.

Participants in a defined-contribution retirement plan filed a class action suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1002(34)), alleging mismanagement and payment of excessive funds. The district court certified the class, but entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part, first upholding denial of a motion to amend the complaint and the court's decision to strike expert testimony relating to matters not in the original complaint. The court remanded a count it characterized as alleging that prudent fiduciaries, armed with the information presented to fiduciaries between 2002 and 2004, would have at least decided between maintaining the status quo and making changes to the common stock funds to limit investment and transactional drag. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants breached the prudent man standard of care by failing to make a reasoned decision under circumstances in which a prudent fiduciary would have done so. The court also remanded a claim that prudent fiduciaries would have solicited competitive bids for record-keeping services on a periodic basis. The court affirmed summary judgment on a claim relating to the trustee's compensation including interest income from "float."

A 1994 regulation concerning fall protection in the residential construction industry was subject to a 1999 directive instructing OSHA to not commence enforcement actions against employers using certain systems. The directive included notice of rule-making, soliciting comments on how the regulation should be amended. In 2010 the rule-making closed without amendment to the 1994 regulation. The 1999 directive was rescinded and a new directive issued, authorizing proceedings that may require employers to show, on a case-by-case basis, why they employed fall protection other than described in the 1994 regulation. Employers argued that the 2010 directive constituted an occupational health and safety standard, subject to rule-making procedures. The Seventh Circuit dismissed a petition for review. Although employers using certain systems have not been required to make case-by-case showings since 1999, the 1999 directive did not change the 1994 regulation and was only an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, as was the 2010 directive.

The union claimed that the company owed $2.2 million to benefits funds, based on what would have been contributed had the company used plumbers' union workers for certain work, as required by contract. The union submitted a grievance to the Joint Arbitration Board (JAB); the company submitted its own grievance, claiming that some work was performed by members of other unions. The company contacted the Plan for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry, which determined that the JAB did not have authority over the dispute. The plumbers union is not a participant in the Plan. The JAB was not notified of the order, held a hearing that the company did not attend, found violation of the contract, and ordered payment of $3.3 million. The district court declined to invalidate the order. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The Union was not required to file suit challenging the Plan order, but was entitled to challenge it when raised as a defense to the JAB order. Two parties can agree to settle a dispute in any way that does not violate the rights of third parties, but the company withdrew its consent to arbitrate with JAB by seeking relief with the Plan. Of the inconsistent arbitration orders, Plan's order takes precedence.

An African-American coroner was elected in 2004. After a contract with Indiana University for pathology services expired, two Caucasian university pathologists formed a company (FP) and contracted to provide services. The new coroner replaced the deputy coroner with an African-American, resulting in a successful claim of reverse discrimination. The new deputy expressed concerns about costs under the FP contract and whether FP used county supplies for outside work allowed by the contract. The county terminated the contract under a six-month notice provision and hired an African-American pathologist without conducting a search or checking references. The change did not save money. FP and the pathologists filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, stating that a reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled to believe that the contract was terminated because of cost. The contract allowed the county to require FP to stop performing outside work, but the defendants chose not to do so despite their statements that they were very satisfied with FP's services. The coroner had made remarks about wanting to replace white workers with African-Americans; although he contracted with FP, it is possible to infer that FP was intended to serve as a "placeholder" for a seamless transition until African-American replacements could be found.