Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 791 et seq., alleging that the District: (1) unlawfully refused to accommodate her disability, and (2) retaliated against her for requesting an accommodation by terminating her employment. The district court granted summary judgment to the District. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment against plaintiff's refusal-to-accommodate claim because she was not a qualified individual. The court also concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment against plaintiff's retaliation claim because she did not proffer any evidence proving that the actual reason for her termination was retaliatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Minter v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Salem petitioned for review of the Board's certification of a bargaining unit and its subsequent determination that Salem unlawfully refused to bargain. The court concluded that the hearing officer's (HO's) premature closing of the record was not an abuse of discretion. In this case, despite the Board’s unexplained failure to allow a party to submit evidence at a representation hearing, Salem has not, as it must, established prejudice. The court also concluded that neither the HO nor the General Counsel abused his discretion where Salem has not shown prejudice by the decision not to transfer for alleged ex parte communications; Salem failed to establish that the Board's error of granting the Union's Special Appeal was prejudicial; Salem does not explain how the Board’s issuance of the erratum order was ultra vires or how the order prejudiced it; and, assuming arguendo that the Board erred by not allowing Salem to use the Sub-Zero Freezer Co. exception, no prejudice resulted. The court concluded that, although the Board's proceedings contain a myriad of missteps, Salem has failed to establish prejudice. The court denied Salem's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Salem Hosp. Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Mike-sell's petitioned for review of the Board's determination that it violated Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5), when it unilaterally instituted terms and conditions of employment for its employees represented by the Teamsters. The court concluded that, although it is clear that the Union wished to avoid an impasse, the court does not think the ALJ’s determination that the Union did not improperly delay bargaining sessions can be effectively challenged; Mike-sell's criticism of the ALJ’s reliance on bargaining that took place after the Company put into effect its offer is irrelevant; and the Board’s determination that an impasse had not been reached is a legitimate finding (a mixed question of fact and law). Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Mike-sell's Potato Chip Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Nova petitioned for review of the Board's finding that it violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). Nova hired UNICCO to provide maintenance, landscaping, and janitorial services throughout its campus. The court concluded that the Board is entitled to summary enforcement of the uncontested portion of its order regarding the no-solicitation rule as applied to Nova’s own employees; the Board reasonably found that Nova violated section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting an UNICCO employee from engaging in handbilling on a campus parking lot; the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Nova's challenges to the Board’s application of New York New York, LLC d/b/a New York New York Hotel & Casino because Nova failed to urge them before the Board pursuant to NLRA 10(e); and an UNICCO Director’s questions, while at the work site, about a former UNICCO employee’s union activities were, under the circumstances, impermissibly coercive. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "NOVA Southeastern Univ. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks review of the Board's conclusion that petitioner's refusal to reinstate the striking workers was itself an unfair labor practice and order of reinstatement. The court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, concluding that the Board’s categorization of the strike as an unfair labor practice strike is supported by substantial evidence showing that at least part of the employees’ motive to strike was petitioner’s unlawful refusal to reinstate an employee who had been unlawfully discharged. The court also concluded that the Board was reasonable in concluding that the employees’ respect for a prior contractual agreement did not convert their otherwise lawful strike into an unprotected partial strike, and ample evidence supports the Board's conclusion that the labor relations of two entities, SM and SMI, were centrally controlled. View "Spurlino Materials v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Hyundai challenged the Board's order invalidating five rules in the employee handbook maintained by Hyundai because the rules violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 157, 158(a)(1). The Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Canning made clear that the three Board members on the panel in this case were validly appointed, and the court restored the case to its active docket after placing it in abeyance. The court found that the Board had jurisdiction over the claims against four rules - ones that the complaint linked to the dismissal by asserting that Hyundai discharged an employee because of her violations of those rules. In regard to the fifth rule, however, the court concluded that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the General Counsel never alleged it to have played a causal role in the dismissal. Therefore, as to the four rules properly before the Board, the court enforced the Board’s order as to three but reversed as to the fourth. View "Hyundai Amer. Shipping Agency v. NLRB" on Justia Law