Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that UPS discriminated against him based on his gender, sexual orientation, and disability when it failed to hire him as a part-time package handler. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of UPS, holding that plaintiff could not prove that UPS discriminated against him because of a protected status of which it was unaware and even if a jury could find that there was discrimination, UPS provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for not hiring plaintiff. View "Hunter v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against his employer, the City of O'Fallon, alleging, among other things, that the city retaliated against him for exercising his right to free speech guaranteed by the United States and Missouri Constitutions. Plaintiff's free speech claim alleged that the city retaliated against him for the comments made in his report to the Board of Alderman by failing to promote plaintiff, by failing to follow internal procedures while investigating him, and by taking negative personnel actions against him. Defendant's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621-634, and Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 213.055, claims alleged that the city failed to promote plaintiff because of his age. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the city on plaintiff's free speech claims; plaintiff failed to meet his burden under the MHRA and summary judgment was properly granted on this claim; summary judgment was properly granted on the ADEA claim; and his Missouri Workers' Compensation Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 287.780 claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Buehrle v. City of O'Fallon, Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her employer alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Iowa Code 216 et seq. Because plaintiff was unable to perform the essential functions of her position, with or without reasonable accommodation, she failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination under the ADA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kallail v. Alliant Energy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sustained injuries while riding in a locomotive operated by his employer, BNSF. Plaintiff brought suit seeking compensation under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq. The district court concluded that relevant regulations promulgated under the Federal Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., provided the sole duty of care owed to plaintiff in relation to his claim. The district court ruled that plaintiff had not demonstrated a failure to comply with the relevant regulations and that plaintiff had therefore failed to establish a breach in BNSF's duty of care under the FELA, and therefore granted summary judgment for BNSF. Because the district court granted summary judgment on an issue not raised or discussed by either party, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The court also reversed in part the district court's order excluding expert testimony, because BNSF had not met its burden of showing that FRSA regulations substantially subsumed plaintiff's claim. The court affirmed that order in part because the district court correctly excluded other portions of the expert's testimony as prohibited by Rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. View "Cowden v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and 19 other employees represent a class of hourly production employees at a meat-processing facility of Tyson Foods. The employees sued Tyson for not paying wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act (NWPCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1228 et seq. At issue was the calculation of the employees' compensable work time where Tyson measured "gang time" - when the employees were at their working stations and the production line was moving. The employees claimed that Tyson failed to provide FLSA overtime compensation for donning personal protective equipment (PPE) and clothing before production and again after lunch, and for doffing PPE and clothing before lunch and again after production. The court held that the employees waived some of their claims and the district court did not err in instructing the jury or in its evidentiary findings. View "Lopez, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued his employer, Trinity, alleging that Trinity discriminated against him on the basis of his son's disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. He also alleged a violation of his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the district court did not err in applying the honest belief rule; plaintiff failed to show that his termination was based on pretext or a discriminatory motive; and plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of an FMLA violation. Trinity proffered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination - it believed that plaintiff violated company policy by encouraging a work slowdown - and plaintiff presented insufficient evidence to show that the explanation was pretextual. View "Pulczinski v. Trinity Structural Towers" on Justia Law

Warren Unilube petitioned for review of an order of the NLRB that directed the company to recognize and bargain with the Union. The NLRB cross-applied for enforcement of its order. The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the NLRB's determination that the Union's unfair labor practice charge was not baseless or frivolous. The court also held that the NLRB properly denied the company's objections without a hearing where, in considering objections, the Regional Director could act on the basis of an investigation or upon the record of a hearing. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and enforced the NLRB's order. View "Warren Unilube, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Union attempted to commence arbitration of a terminated employee's grievance. Before arbitration proceedings commenced, the employee died, and the employer refused to proceed with arbitration. The Union brought this suit to compel arbitration. The district court found that the employer did not agree to arbitrate claims of a deceased employee and dismissed the case. The court reversed and held that the parties agreed to mandatory arbitration of the employee's claim and no legal principal deprived the Union of power to enforce that agreement. View "Sheet Metal Workers, etc. v. Silgan Containers, etc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against Seagate, alleging a violation of Minnesota Statutes section 181.64, false statements as inducement to entering employment, and a common law claim of promissory estoppel. On appeal, Seagate argued, among other things, that the district court submitted an erroneous jury instruction. Plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing that if a new trial was ordered on the statutory claim, his promissory estoppel claim should likewise be retried. The court concluded that the district court erred in instructing the jury, and thus the court reversed. The court vacated the order dismissing the promissory estoppel claim and remanded for a new trial on both claims. The court also vacated the order granting attorneys' fees. View "Vaidyanathan v. Seagate US LLC, et al." on Justia Law

David Fesler, a former sales representative with Whelen Engineering Company, sued Whelen for breach of contract. Fesler alleging that he was an employee of Whelen, that policy documents issued by Whelen applicable to sales representatives created a unilateral contract of employment, and that Whelen breached that unilateral contract of employment by terminating him without just cause and by failing to provide him with notice of substandard performance and an opportunity to cure. The district court granted summary judgment for Whelen. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Fesler was an independent contractor and not an employee, the policy documents could not have created a unilateral contract. Thus, the district court properly dismissed Fesler's claim for breach of contract. View "Fesler v. Whelen Eng'g Co." on Justia Law