Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Alexander and Rogers, African‐American women who formerly worked as cocktail waitresses for Casino Queen, claimed race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. Their allegations were based on reassignments to less-lucrative floor areas; discipline with respect to absences, tardies, breaks, and eating at work; and requests for days off. The district court granted Casino Queen summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed as to the hostile work environment claim, but reversed as to the race discrimination and retaliation claims. The plaintiffs presented adequate evidence that the floor assignments constituted an adverse employment action. View "Alexander v. Casino Queen Inc." on Justia Law

Gaines questioned the roadworthiness of two different trucks that his employer of five years (K-Five) assigned him. Management took steps to address his concerns, but the trucks never reached the level of safety sought by Gaines. On his last Friday with the company, he informally discussed an alleged steering problem with a K-Five mechanic. He later misreported what the mechanic said. Gaines claims that he honestly believed he was accurately relaying the information but that he botched the details. Citing the false report and instances of alleged insubordination, K-Five fired Gaines. Gaines claimed that he was fired due to his national origin or because he complained about safety issues and that he was owed unpaid overtime. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of K-Five. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part and remanded, finding that Gaines presented a triable issue of fact as to whether he was fired for complaining about safety issues. View "Gaines v. K-Five Constr. Corp." on Justia Law

Manitowoc police brought in a man suspected of stabbing a police officer. The suspect apparently refused to eat, and officers believed he was mentally unstable. Police Chief Kingsbury arranged for the suspect’s mother to bring him a home-cooked meal, but the chief’s wishes were not communicated until after officers, including Swetlik, had already taken the suspect to the county jail for booking. Kingsbury called the jail and spoke with Swetlik. Swetlik told other police officers that Kingsbury had told him to lie to the jailers and had threatened him and reported the same to a deputy chief. The police union later took a vote of no confidence in Kingsbury and compiled a list of grievances, including Swetlik’s complaint. A private firm was engaged to investigate and ultimately recommended that both Swetlik and Kingsbury be terminated, concluding, based on a recording of the call, that Swetlik lied about the incident. The city council voted to bring termination charges against both. Swetlik was placed on paid leave until a hearing officer recommended dismissal of the charge. Swetlik was reinstated, but sued, claiming retaliation in violation of the First Amendment by bringing charges against him for his complaints about Kingsbury. The district court rejected the claim, finding that Swetlik’s statements were not protected speech because they did not address a matter of public concern. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the defendants were justified in bringing the charge based on the investigation.View "Swetlik v. Crawford" on Justia Law

In 2008 the EEOC received a charge of discrimination from a woman who claimed Mach Mining had denied her applications for coal mining jobs because of her gender. After investigation, the agency determined there was reasonable cause to believe Mach had discriminated against a class of female job applicants at its Johnston City site and notified the company of its intention to begin informal conciliation. The parties did not reach agreement. In 2011, the EEOC told Mach that further efforts would be futile and filed a complaint two weeks later. Mach asserted failure to conciliate in good faith. The district court certified for interlocutory appeal the question whether an alleged failure to conciliate is subject to judicial review in the form of an implied affirmative defense to an EEOC suit. The Seventh Circuit disagreed with other circuits and responded that it is not. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act directs the agency to try to negotiate an end to an employer’s unlawful employment practices before seeking a judicial remedy, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b), but finding the requirement to create an implied failure-to-conciliate defense would add an unwarranted mechanism by which employers could avoid liability for unlawful discrimination. Such a defense would be contrary to the statutory prohibition on using what was said and done during conciliation “as evidence in a subsequent proceeding.” View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Mach Mining, LLC" on Justia Law

Gogos, a pipe welder for 45 years, has taken blood pressure medication for more than eight years. He began working for AMS in December 2012 as a welder and pipe-fitter. The next month, his blood pressure spiked and he experienced intermittent vision loss and a red eye. His supervisor agreed that he could leave to seek immediate medical treatment. As Gogos left work, he saw his general foreman and stated that he was going to the hospital because “my health is not very good lately.” The foreman immediately fired him. After pursuing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Gogos sued. He applied to proceed in forma pauperis and requested that the court recruit counsel, stating that he cannot afford an attorney; that he has only a grammar-school education; and that English is not his primary language. The district court dismissed, reasoning that Gogos’s medical conditions were “transitory” and “suspect.” The Seventh Circuit vacated, reasoning that Gogos stated a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12112.View "Gogos v. AMS-Mech. Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

A Caterpillar worker developed epicondylitis, an inflammation of tendons near the elbow. A Department of Labor regulation requires employers to report injuries if “the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition.” The employee worked in a packing department, placing items in boxes for shipping. Caterpillar convened a panel, with three board‐certified specialists in musculoskeletal disorders. Relying on guides issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the American Medical Association that repetitive motion plus force (weight or impact) can cause epicondylitis, and that pronation plus force also can cause the condition, but that repetitive motion alone does not, the panel found that work could not have caused the employee’s epicondylitis. Although Caterpillar presented several witnesses, the ALJ accepted the view of the DOL’s single witness, which ignored epidemiological studies and Caterpillar’s experience. The Seventh Circuit remanded. On remand, the ALJ again held that Caterpillar must pay a penalty for failing to report an injury as work‐related and OSHA declined to review the decision. Caterpillar has filed another petition for judicial review. The Seventh Circuit vacated. Prevailing views, and the data behind them, must be considered; they cannot be ignored on the opinion of any witness. View "Caterpillar Logistics, Inc. v. Soli" on Justia Law

Reynolds, a 62-year-old white male with more than 30 years’ experience with the U.S. General Services Administration, was passed over for a promotion from Building Management Specialist, to Building Manager. Bell, a 32-year-old black employee, got the job over Reynolds and three other candidates, all older than 40. Reynolds sued, alleging age discrimination in violation of the “federal sector” provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 633a; he also claimed race, sex, and retaliation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. The district court entered summary judgment on the retaliation claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Reynolds dropped his claims of racial and sex discrimination. After trial, the district court rejected the age-discrimination claim for lack of evidentiary support and refused to allow Reynolds to amend his complaint. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the district court’s findings defeated the age-discrimination claim regardless of whether a “but-for “requirement or a more lenient “mixed motives” standard applied.View "Reynolds v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2007, Professor Ortony of Northwestern University, asked Dean Peterson, for a year’s leave to visit another university. Peterson proposed to authorize paid leave during calendar year 2008 and the 2011–12 academic year, if Ortony would teach during the intervening time and then retire. Peterson’s letter stated: “At your request, I will accept your resignation ... effective with your retirement on August 31, 2012” and specified when Ortony would be on paid leave and when he would carry a full teaching load. Ortony signed the letter in June, 2007. In 2011 Ortony did not want to retire and insisted that he had not agreed to do so. He filed an EEOC charge under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 626, and subsequently filed suit. The district court granted the University judgment on the pleadings. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Northwestern did not terminate Ortony: it bought out his tenure by promising him five years’ pay for three years’ work. That he changed his mind does not make the 2007 contract less binding. The court rejected Ortony’s argument that he “construed the [contract] to set out a tentative plan under which he could leave the University, if he chose to do so, in five years.” View "Ortony v. Northwestern Univ." on Justia Law

The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) investigated Burkhardt, a correctional officer at LCC and determined that Burkhardt had taken his cell phone inside and used it to make 30 calls from inside the facility, in violation of IDOC policies and of Illinois law. State’s Attorney Hahn filed felony charges against Burkhardt. A few days later, another correctional officer told other employees that Burkhardt was being prosecuted for accidentally bringing a cell phone into LCC. In response, Volkman, a casework supervisor, called Hahn and left a message that “as a citizen” he did not believe that incarceration should be pursued in Burkhardt’s case, and that Hahn should consider allowing the matter to be handled through the IDOC disciplinary process. Hahn called Volkman back. News of the conversation reached the internal affairs investigator at LCC, who investigated. Volkman received a written reprimand and was suspended for five days. Volkman sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that he was retaliated against for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment. The district court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that, even if they were not, Volkman had not proven his case as a matter of law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Volkman v. Ryker" on Justia Law

In 2005, Standard introduced a new financial product into the 403(b) and 457 markets. Blanchar was hired as Director of Institutional Sales/Product Manager for those products. His responsibilities included training staff, doing what was needed to make Standard’s products competitive, suggesting product enhancements, and promoting the sales of special markets retirement plans. In 2007, his title changed to Special Markets Director for Retirement Plans business unit. Blanchar identified his major duties as working with the sales team. His supervisor, Baumgarten, identified one of Blanchar’s key goals as representing Standard in the marketplace as the product manager and expert on Special Markets,” and noted that Blanchar was considered “the 403(b)/457 answer man.” Blanchar was not involved in direct sales, but conducted webinars and spoke at conferences, using materials that he had personally created. Although Blanchar had no final decision-making authority, Baumgarten typically sought advice from Blanchar. The district court rejected Blanchar’s action to recover overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, finding that Blanchar qualified as a bona fide administrative employee, and was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Blanchar v. Standard Ins. Co." on Justia Law