Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

After BIVI discharged an employee for falsifying work records, the Union grieved the discharge. BIVI and the Union submitted the dispute to arbitration, the arbitrator ordered that the employee be reinstated without back pay, and BIVI commenced this action to vacate the arbitration award. The district court granted summary judgment to the Union and BIVI appealed. The court concluded that the arbitrator's award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) where BIVI's Article VIII, Section 3(d) argument was waived and where the arbitrator conducted a straightforward balancing of the management rights and just cause provisions. The court also concluded that BIVI has not made the factual and legal showing that would be required for the court to invoke the narrow public policy exemption and vacate an arbitration award that fully acknowledged the employee's misconduct, denied her back pay as a result of that misconduct, but reinstated her to her former position. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. UFCW" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and Arkansas state law, alleging various claims against her former employers. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employers on her claims of sex discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The court concluded that plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she suffered an adverse employment action and that she received different treatment because of her sex; considering the totality of the circumstances, plaintiff failed to establish that an incident related to a workplace disagreement permeated the workplace and thus had not established a prima facie case of hostile work environment; plaintiff failed to establish a case of constructive discharge where, inter alia, the record reflected that the employers sought to retain her as an employee; and plaintiff failed to establish a case of retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employers on plaintiff's claims. View "Rester v. Media, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against ARI, alleging that a golf cart accident had caused his debilitating back pain. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting an expert's testimony under the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; under Arkansas law, the jury could rely upon lay testimony to conclude that plaintiff was asymptomatic prior to the accident and upon the expert's testimony to conclude that plaintiff's lack of symptoms prior to the accident tended to exclude potential causes of his symptoms; where the parties agreed that the district court abused its discretion in partially remitting the jury's damages award, the district court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial; and the district court did not err in its remittitur of damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Tedder v. American Railcar Industries" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs represented four security guards that filed suit against the Commission for unlawful termination. After the Commission chose to reinstate the guards, it issued checks for back pay to the guards but did not put plaintiffs' names on the checks. Plaintiffs moved to establish an attorneys' lien against the Commission and the district court denied the motion. Determining that the court had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, the court concluded that the district court erred in using equitable discretion to deny the attorneys' lien under Minn. Stat. 481.13 where the statutory requirements for the lien were met. Equitable principles did not trump the lien. Accordingly, plaintiffs were entitled to an attorneys' lien and the court reversed and remanded. View "Schermer, et al. v. Municipal Building Commission, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CRST in state court alleging that CRST negligently failed to maintain his workers' compensation insurance coverage. CRST removed the case to federal court and the district court granted summary judgment to CRST. The court affirmed the district court's holding that plaintiff's action was barred by the applicable Missouri statute of limitations. View "Brown v. CRST Malone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Metro, alleging that her supervisor had sexually harassed her in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Metro. The court concluded that the supervisor's alleged conduct was not so severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment and, therefore, affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff presented genuine issues of fact as to whether the supervisor was motivated by sex and whether he intentionally and proximately caused her termination. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this quid pro quo harassment claim. View "McMiller v. Metro" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her supervisor, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, alleging that the supervisor violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Plaintiff also alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and claims against the Department under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff's FMLA claims failed because she was not an eligible employee under the FLMA and she had been employed for less than 12 months; plaintiff's FLSA claim failed because she did not plead adequately that the supervisor violated the statute; because plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her position, with or without reasonable accommodation, she failed to create a genuine issue for trial on a claim of discrimination under the ADA; and there was no genuine issue for trial on plaintiff's claim of unlawful retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the FMLA and FLSA claims and the district court's grant of summary judgment on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. View "Hill v. Walker" on Justia Law

Branden Mueller filed a complaint against BCI with the DOE alleging that BCI had terminated him after he complained about not being paid prevailing wages as required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115. BCI subsequently petitioned for review of the Secretary's order reinstating Mueller with back pay. The court concluded that BCI was deprived of its due process rights because it was never afforded a hearing and because the post-deprivation procedures available under section 1553 of the ARRA did not provide an opportunity for BCI to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses. Therefore, the court granted the petition and vacated the order. View "Business Communications v. U.S. Dept. of Education, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Riceland, alleging retaliatory discharge after being a witness in an internal investigation into a complaint about a manager. A jury subsequently awarded plaintiff approximately $60,000 in compensatory damages and back pay in regards to his 42 U.S.C. 1981 claim. The court concluded that the district court properly denied Riceland's motion for judgment where the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find retaliation; the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's Title VII claim where, even if plaintiff had properly preserved this claim on appeal, the claim was untimely; it was not necessary to address the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's state law claim because the state statute would not entitle plaintiff to any additional relief beyond his section 1981 claim; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on punitive damages; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's request for reinstatement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sayger v. Riceland Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

Reyco appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Union and the district court's denial of its motion for summary judgment and request to vacate the arbitrator's award. At issue was Article XII, section 3 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Reyco and the Union. In this case, the arbitrator recognized that the crux of the issue was whether the use of the word "may" was discretionary or mandatory when referring to exceptions to be made to a holiday pay policy. The arbitrator, relying on parol evidence, concluded that the word "may" indicated the company held "some discretion" and that the language of the contract did not make granting the exception mandatory. The court concluded, however, that there was no ambiguity in the contract language at issue. The arbitrator was not construing an ambiguous contract term, but rather was imposing a new obligation upon Reyco. Therefore, the arbitrator's interpretation altered the plain language of the contract as written. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order and opinion granting summary judgment for the Union and confirming the arbitration award, and directed the court to grant Reyco's motion for summary judgment, vacating the arbitrator's award. View "Reyco Granning LLC v. IBT, Local No. 245" on Justia Law