Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff brought suit against the Chief of Police and the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim. Plaintiff, a police officer for the City, led a no-confidence vote of the police officers' union against the Chief. The Chief subsequently delayed signing an application for a certification that would have entitled plaintiff to a five percent salary increase. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden under Garcetti v. Ceballos, to show that he undertook his act as a private citizen and not pursuant to his official duties. The court disagreed and held that plaintiff had established a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chief and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City because plaintiff did not adduce sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on his Monnell claim. View "Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, et al" on Justia Law

This case concerned allegations of corruption by a representative of the Railway during mandatory arbitration of a dispute relating to the discharge of a Railway employee, who was represented by the Union. The Union subsequently filed a petition for review in federal district court under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 153(q). The district court granted the Railway's motion to dismiss. The court held that the district court erred with respect to jurisdiction because it failed to properly apply section 153(q). The district court also erred with respect to the merits because it evaluated the Railway's conduct as fraud - not corruption, and failed to draw inferences in the light most favorable to the Union. The court reversed and remanded the case to allow the Union to attempt to prove its allegations of corruption by clear and convincing evidence. View "United Transportation Union, et al v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a now-retired member of Local 166, filed suit under section 101(a)(3) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(3), to challenge the legality of an organizing fee and a dues increase imposed on Local 166 members by the local union's umbrella organizations. The court held that the plain text of the LMRDA authorized a labor organization, other than a local labor organization or a federation of national or international labor organizations, to levy assessments or increase dues or initiation fees payable by its members by any of the procedures enumerated in section 101(a)(3)(B), provided that union members' rights were adequately protected in the approval process. Because Defendant LIUNA satisfied both prerequisites in this case, the court concluded that it complied with the LMRDA when it enacted an organizing fee, applicable to all of its members working in the construction industry, following a majority vote of its delegates at a general convention. The court held, however, that Defendant NCDCL lacked the statutory authority to ratify such an increase because Local 166 members were not members of the NCDCL. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Corns v. Laborers Int'l Union, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Montblanc, and its President and CEO, Jan-Patrick Schmitz. The court concluded that Montblanc demonstrated that plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of store manager by offering her admissions that her disability prevented her from performing any work and plaintiff, in response, offered no submission establishing a triable issue of fact. Therefore, summary judgment on plaintiff's disability discrimination claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov't Code 12940(a), was proper. Because plaintiff pointed to no evidence that would raise a triable issue of whether Montblanc's true reason for terminating her employment was discriminatory, the court affirmed summary judgment on the retaliation claim under section 12940(h). Further, Schmitz's conduct during a store visit did not constitute harassment under section 12940(j). Finally, plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction of emotion distress failed where Schmitz's conduct could not be characterized as exceeding all bounds of that tolerated in a civilized community and plaintiff's alleged emotional distress was not "severe." Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims.View "Lawler v. Mountblanc North America, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

Joseph Tracy appealed the Benefits Review Board's determination that injuries he incurred in part during his employment by Global International Offshore Ltd. from 1998-2002 were not covered under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950. Because the court held that no portion of Tracy's employment during this period satisfied the Act's status and situs test, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Keller Foundation/Case FNDN, et al v. Tracy, et al; Tracy, Jr. v. Director, Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, alleging causes of action for employment discrimination and wrongful discharge. The district court subsequently dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that she had failed to state a claim and therefore failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). The court concluded that plaintiff's amended complaint, while brief, nonetheless satisfied Rule 8(a)(2)'s pleading standard. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Sheppard v. David Evans and Assoc." on Justia Law

These two matters have been consolidated for a single opinion because they both arose out of the same labor dispute. HTH and the Union filed cross-petitions from the 2011 ruling of the NLRB that between August 2005 and May 2008, HTH committed unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. HTH appealed from a preliminary injunction that required it to remedy certain actions taken in 2010. These actions were the subject of unfair labor practice charges currently pending before the NLRB. The court affirmed a preliminary injunction against HTH pending final NLRB disposition of the 2005-2008 unfair labor practice charges. The NLRB resolved those charges in its 2011 ruling, which HTH then sought to overturn. Notwithstanding the 2010 injunction, HTH repeated the very actions that had been enjoined that year, prompting another round of litigation before the NLRB. The district court granted a second preliminary injunction and HTH subsequently appealed that injunction. The court affirmed the injunction and granted the NLRB's application for enforcement of its 2011 ruling. View "Frankl v. HTH Corp., et al." on Justia Law

The Commonwealth appealed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that she was terminated without cause from her position as Special Assistant to the Governor for Women's Affairs in violation of Article III, section 22 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Based on the meaning of Article III, section 22 determined by the final arbiter of Commonwealth law, the court held that plaintiff did not have a protected interest in continued employment beyond the term of the governor who appointed her. Therefore, plaintiff's termination without cause did not violate the Due Process Clause, and the district court's judgment was vacated and the case remanded. View "Peter-Palican v. Government of The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, et al." on Justia Law

Four days after Plaintiff, a detective in the City of Burbank Police Department, disclosed the alleged use of abusive interrogation tactics by his colleagues to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, he was placed on administrative leave by the chief of police. Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against the chief of police and others in the Burbank Police Department, alleging that his placement on administrative leave was unconstitutional retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Huppert v. City of Pittsburg controlled Plaintiff's case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that, under Huppert, Plaintiff's disclosure to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was made in the course of his official duties, and thus fell outside the protection offered by the First Amendment. View "Dahlia v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff played professional football for nineteen years. When he retired in 2002, he was employed by the Tennessee Titans. In 2008, he filed a workers' compensation claim in California, alleging that he suffered pain and disability from injuries incurred during his career. Plaintiff asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate an arbitration award that prohibited him from pursuing workers' compensation benefits under California law, arguing (1) the award violated California public policy and federal labor policy, and (2) the award was in disregard of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The district court confirmed the arbitration award. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff did not allege sufficient contacts with California to show his workers' compensation claim came within the scope of California's workers' compensation regime, and therefore, he did not establish that the arbitration award violated California public policy; (2) because Plaintiff did not show that the award deprived him of something to which he was entitled under state law, he did not show it violated federal labor policy; and (3) Plaintiff did not establish that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the Full Faith and Credit Clause. View "Matthews v. Nat'l Football League Mgmt. Council " on Justia Law