Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

An employee of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), represented by her union, was the subject of two union grievances: one alleging improper performance evaluations and another alleging bullying by her supervisor. While these grievances were pending, the employee also filed a separate lawsuit in federal district court, asserting claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, based on some of the same underlying events.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to WMATA, holding that the settlement agreement reached between WMATA and the union in the grievance process barred the employee’s Title VII lawsuit. The district court interpreted the settlement as an unambiguous release of all claims related to the grievances, including those raised in the federal lawsuit, and therefore did not address the merits of the Title VII claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that the settlement agreement resolved only the union’s contractual grievance claims under the collective bargaining agreement and did not extend to the employee’s independent statutory claims under Title VII. The court emphasized that the agreement’s language was limited to the union grievances and did not reference the pending Title VII lawsuit or purport to waive those claims. The court also noted that any waiver of Title VII rights would require clear and unmistakable language, which was absent here. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jones v. WMATA" on Justia Law

A brewing and bottling company in Puerto Rico sought to expand its operations and required a continuous, 24/7 work schedule. However, its existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the union representing its employees limited work to five days and forty hours per week, generally excluding weekends. During negotiations for a successor CBA, the employer attempted to impose a six-day work schedule, contrary to the active CBA, and later placed the union president on unpaid leave after he exceeded his annual paid union leave hours. The union president had not requested additional unpaid leave, and the employer had not previously enforced this provision in a similar situation. The union filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging unfair labor practices.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the employer committed three unfair labor practices: retaliating against the union president for protected activities, unilaterally changing a mandatory subject of bargaining by placing him on unpaid leave without a request, and implementing its final offer on work schedules without reaching a good-faith impasse. The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s findings and conclusions. The employer then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review, while the NLRB sought enforcement of its order.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the NLRB’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and not reversible error. The court denied the employer’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement. The main holdings were that the employer’s actions constituted adverse employment actions motivated by anti-union animus, that the employer unlawfully changed a mandatory subject of bargaining, and that it improperly implemented its final offer without a good-faith impasse or an overall breakdown in negotiations. View "Compania Cervecera de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Eugene Hudson, a long-time member and leader within the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), was twice removed from his position as National Secretary-Treasurer after he criticized the union’s leadership and use of resources while campaigning for union president. Hudson’s communications, including a letter and an email sent to union officers using union resources, led to internal disciplinary proceedings. The AFGE’s National Executive Council found that Hudson’s actions violated the union’s constitution, resulting in his removal in August 2017. After a preliminary injunction reinstated him, a second investigation led to his removal again in February 2018. Hudson amended his lawsuit to challenge both removals, alleging they were acts of retaliation for his protected speech under section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).The United States District Court for the District of Columbia presided over a jury trial, where the jury found that AFGE unlawfully retaliated against Hudson in the first removal but not the second, awarding no damages. Hudson moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury instructions misstated the causation standard and the burden of proof. The district court denied the motion, holding that Hudson had not properly preserved his objections and that the instructions were not plainly erroneous.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a retaliation claim under LMRDA section 101(a)(2) requires proof of but-for causation, not merely that protected speech was a motivating factor. The court also found that Hudson could not challenge the burden of proof instruction because he had proposed the language used. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, denying Hudson’s request for a new trial. View "Hudson v. American Federation of Government Employees" on Justia Law

A former federal employee alleged that her union mishandled an arbitration proceeding and discriminated against her based on sex and disability. She claimed that the union’s local president made unwanted sexual advances, disparaged her status as a nursing mother, and ultimately withdrew union support for her grievance against her employer. The employee filed several unfair labor practice (ULP) charges with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), some of which were dismissed as untimely, and also filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which issued her a right-to-sue letter. She then brought two lawsuits in federal district court: one alleging violations of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against the union and its local, and another, pro se, alleging retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against the union, its local, and two union officials.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed both lawsuits for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) precluded the employee’s claims, holding that her allegations were essentially claims for breach of the union’s duty of fair representation, which must be pursued exclusively through the FLRA’s administrative process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that the FSLMRS does not preclude federal employees from bringing Title VII and ADA claims against their unions in federal district court, even when the alleged conduct could also constitute a ULP. The court reasoned that Congress did not intend to displace these specific statutory discrimination remedies with the FSLMRS’s more limited scheme. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the FLSA retaliation claim, finding no indication that Congress intended for such claims against unions to proceed in district court alongside the FSLMRS process. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the Title VII and ADA claims. View "Lucas v. American Federation of Government Employees" on Justia Law

An employee of a multinational information technology company alleged that his employer engaged in fraudulent practices by obtaining less expensive L-1 and B-1 visas for foreign workers who, according to him, should have been sponsored under the more costly H-1B visa program. He claimed this allowed the company to avoid paying higher application fees and payroll taxes owed to the U.S. government. The employee also asserted that after he reported these alleged practices internally, the company retaliated against him by imposing unrealistic performance goals, removing him from a key client account, and ultimately terminating his employment.After the employee filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the government declined to intervene. The district court dismissed the employee’s first amended complaint, holding that he failed to state a claim for a reverse false claim under the FCA because the company was not obligated to pay higher payroll taxes or application fees for visas it never sought. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that the employee’s reports concerned only potential statutory and regulatory violations, not FCA-protected activity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the reverse false claim, concluding that the employer had no established obligation under the FCA to pay higher payroll taxes or H-1B visa fees for visas it did not apply for. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, holding that the employee sufficiently alleged he engaged in protected activity under the FCA and that the employer retaliated against him for this conduct. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the retaliation claim. View "United States v. Tata Consultancy Services, LTD" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, baristas at Starbucks stores in Buffalo and Depew, New York, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutory tenure protections for members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). They argued that these protections place an impermissible limitation on the President’s executive power. Both plaintiffs had previously filed decertification petitions with the NLRB, which were dismissed due to pending unfair labor practice proceedings against Starbucks.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their petitions had been dismissed, and they had not sought reinstatement. Additionally, the court agreed with the NLRB that the plaintiffs failed to allege compensable harm, which was necessary for their claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. By this time, the plaintiffs had abandoned their claims for injunctive relief and sought only a declaratory judgment that the NLRB members’ tenure protections were unconstitutional. The NLRB, aligning with the Acting Solicitor General, no longer defended the constitutionality of the tenure protections. The court held that there was no longer a live case or controversy because the parties were not sufficiently adverse; both sides agreed on the unconstitutionality of the tenure protections. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Cortes v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Thomas McLamb, a dissident union member, was involved in a heated confrontation with Tiyaka Boone, an incumbent union official, during a union election campaign. McLamb made inflammatory comments that Boone interpreted as personal attacks, leading to a physical altercation where Boone struck McLamb. Another union official, Alma Williams, allegedly suggested to a manager that if Boone were terminated, McLamb should be as well. McLamb filed unfair labor practice charges against the union, claiming Boone's actions were retaliatory and Williams violated the duty of fair representation.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dismissed McLamb's charges. The Board found that Boone's actions were motivated by personal animosity rather than retaliation for McLamb's protected union activities. It also concluded that Williams' comment was intended to seek leniency for Boone, not to punish McLamb. McLamb petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review.The Court of Appeals denied McLamb's petition. It held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's conclusions. The court found that a reasonable employee would understand Boone's actions as a reaction to personal insults rather than union activities. It also agreed with the NLRB that Williams' statement was conditional and aimed at discouraging Boone's discharge, not seeking McLamb's termination. The court concluded that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation, as Williams' actions were not egregious enough to constitute bad faith. View "Thomas McLamb v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A group of entities managing a university hospital and a union representing the hospital’s service workers have been negotiating a successor agreement since 2016. The hospital proposed three key changes: granting itself unilateral control over employment terms, imposing a no-strike clause, and eliminating binding arbitration. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that these proposals collectively constituted bad faith bargaining, as they would leave union employees worse off than if no contract existed.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially sustained the complaint against the hospital, concluding that the hospital violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by bargaining in bad faith. The ALJ found that the hospital’s proposals, including a restrictive grievance-arbitration procedure and a broad management rights clause, indicated an intent to undermine the bargaining process. The hospital’s regressive bargaining tactics further supported this conclusion.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the NLRB’s findings, agreeing that the hospital’s conduct amounted to bad faith surface bargaining. The court found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB’s conclusion that the hospital’s proposals, taken together, would strip the union of its representational role and leave employees with fewer rights than they would have without a contract. The court also upheld the NLRB’s procedural decisions, including vacating an earlier decision due to a board member’s financial conflict of interest and seating a new member for the final decision.The court denied the hospital’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement, affirming the NLRB’s order for the hospital to recognize and bargain with the union, rescind unilateral changes, compensate affected employees, and submit periodic reports on bargaining progress. View "District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Junius Joyner, III, an African-American male, was hired by a legal staffing agency, Mestel & Company (Hire Counsel), and assigned to work at Morrison & Foerster LLP in Washington, D.C. He worked on the merger of Sprint Corporation with T-Mobile U.S., Inc. from July to December 2019. Joyner alleged several incidents of racial discrimination and a hostile work environment, including delayed work assignments, derogatory comments, and harassment by coworkers. He also claimed wrongful discharge under D.C. law, asserting he was terminated after reporting potential antitrust violations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Joyner’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that Joyner did not provide sufficient facts to support his claims of racial discrimination and a hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. The court also dismissed his wrongful discharge claim under D.C. law, concluding that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Joyner’s federal claims, agreeing that Joyner failed to plausibly allege that his treatment was racially motivated or that the work environment was sufficiently hostile. The court found that Joyner’s allegations did not meet the necessary standard to infer racial discrimination or a hostile work environment. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment on the wrongful discharge claim, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over this claim and remanded it with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Joyner v. Morrison and Foerster LLP" on Justia Law

Troy Grove and Vermilion Quarry, divisions of RiverStone Group, Inc., were found by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to have violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The case involved seven employees at the two quarries, represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO. The company was accused of unfair labor practices in bargaining over a pension fund and in its treatment of two employees.The NLRB ruled that the company had not bargained in good faith, declaring that the parties were not at an impasse and that the company had threatened to cease contributions to the pension fund. The company and the union both petitioned for judicial review, and the NLRB sought enforcement of its order. The company argued that the parties were indeed at an impasse after five years of negotiations and a three-year strike, and that the union's last-minute information request did not change this.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the NLRB's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the parties were at an impasse. The court noted that the union's denial of an impasse and its information request were insufficient to rebut the clear evidence of a deadlock. Consequently, the court vacated the NLRB's order regarding the pension fund issue.Regarding the treatment of the two employees, the NLRB had found that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by issuing layoff notices shortly after the employees participated in union activities. The court upheld this part of the NLRB's decision, finding that the timing and circumstances of the layoff notices could reasonably be seen as coercive.The court granted the company's petition for review on the pension fund issue, vacated the relevant parts of the NLRB's order, denied the union's petition for review, and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement in all other respects. View "Troy Grove v. NLRB" on Justia Law