Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

James Hess filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad Company, claiming he was unlawfully terminated due to his disability. Union Pacific has a "Fitness-for-Duty" policy requiring employees to disclose certain health conditions. Hess, who began working for Union Pacific in May 2013, was prescribed Xanax for post-traumatic stress disorder in 2015. In 2016, Union Pacific prohibited medications like Xanax, and in January 2017, Hess was removed from service and later disqualified from his job following a fitness-for-duty evaluation.The District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed Hess's action as untimely, agreeing with Union Pacific that the statute of limitations was not tolled while the Harris class action was pending because Hess was not a member of the certified class. The Harris class action, filed in 2016, alleged that Union Pacific's fitness-for-duty policy discriminated against employees with disabilities. The class was initially defined broadly but was later certified under a narrower definition, excluding Hess. The class was decertified by the Eighth Circuit in March 2020, after which Hess filed an EEOC charge and received a right-to-sue letter.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Citing its recent decision in DeGeer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., the court held that Hess was entitled to American Pipe tolling because he was not unambiguously excluded from the certified class. Therefore, the statute of limitations was tolled until the class was decertified. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that Hess's lawsuit was timely filed. View "Hess v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Robert L. Palmer, a long-time employee of Union Pacific, alleged that the company discriminated against him due to his disability, diabetes, which led to diabetic retinopathy. After undergoing surgery for his right eye in 2011, Palmer continued working until November 2013, when his left eye developed blurred vision. Union Pacific then initiated a fitness-for-duty evaluation, resulting in a February 2014 letter from Dr. Holland, the Chief Medical Officer, imposing permanent work restrictions on Palmer. Despite submitting medical information from his eye doctor in May 2014, which cleared him for work, Palmer received a December 2014 letter reaffirming the permanent restrictions and stating that no further medical information would be considered.Palmer was part of a putative class action (Harris class) filed in February 2016, which alleged that Union Pacific's fitness-for-duty policy discriminated against employees with disabilities. The class was certified in February 2019 but decertified in March 2020. Palmer then filed an individual charge of discrimination with the EEOC in April 2020 and subsequently filed this action under the ADA, claiming his suit was timely due to tolling during the class action.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed Palmer's claims as time-barred, concluding that the only adverse employment action occurred in February 2014, outside the class definition period. Palmer's motion to reconsider or amend was denied, as the court found the December 2014 letter was not a separate adverse action but a consequence of the February 2014 action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court relied on an outdated standard for adverse employment actions. Under the new standard from Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Palmer's allegations that the December 2014 letter caused him harm by denying future review opportunities were sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of reconsideration and leave to amend, remanding for further proceedings. View "Palmer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Petra Brokken sued her employer, Hennepin County, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and wrongful discharge under Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute. Brokken claimed that the County's Covid-19 vaccine and testing policy conflicted with her religious beliefs. After initially granting her a religious exemption, the County revised its policy, threatening termination and loss of accrued benefits if she did not comply. Brokken retired under duress and subsequently filed her lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Brokken's claims. The court ruled that she failed to plead an adverse employment action, did not plausibly plead religious beliefs conflicting with the County’s policy, and that the MHRA does not provide a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs. Additionally, the court found that Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute does not create a private right of action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim under Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute, agreeing that it does not create a private right of action. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Brokken’s Title VII and MHRA claims. The appellate court held that Brokken plausibly pled an adverse employment action and sufficiently alleged that her religious beliefs conflicted with the County’s policy. The court also recognized that the MHRA provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Brokken v. Hennepin County" on Justia Law

Matthew Kale sued his employer, Aero Simulation, Inc. (ASI), alleging religious and disability discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Constitution, and state law. ASI required all employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, with non-compliance resulting in disciplinary action, including termination. Kale requested a religious exemption, citing his belief that his body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and should not be subjected to unwanted intrusions. ASI denied his request, and Kale was terminated. He filed a charge with the EEOC, which issued a right to sue letter.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota dismissed Kale’s claims, ruling that he failed to plausibly plead religious beliefs conflicting with ASI’s Covid-19 policy, did not allege that ASI regarded him as disabled due to his unvaccinated status, and that his proposed amended complaint was futile. Kale appealed the dismissal of his federal law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that Kale failed to allege facts showing that ASI’s testing requirement conflicted with his bona fide religious beliefs. The court noted that Kale’s complaint did not adequately connect his objection to testing with specific religious principles. Additionally, the court found that Kale did not exhaust his administrative remedies for his ADA claim, as he only asserted religious discrimination in his EEOC charge. The court also upheld the denial of Kale’s motion to amend his complaint, deeming it futile as it contained the same deficiencies as the original complaint. The judgment was affirmed. View "Kale v. Aero Simulation, Inc." on Justia Law

Brett Jens resigned from his position at Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC, and subsequently joined a competitor, J.R. Simplot Company. Wilbur-Ellis filed a lawsuit against Jens and Simplot, seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce restrictive covenants in Jens’s employment agreement and to prevent Simplot’s alleged tortious interference with the agreement. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the restrictive covenants were no longer enforceable.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota reviewed the case and determined that Wilbur-Ellis was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim against Jens. The court found that the restrictive covenants in Jens’s employment agreement did not survive past the agreement’s expiration date of February 28, 2010. Wilbur-Ellis appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction, arguing that the restrictive covenants were intended to begin when Jens’s employment ended. Simplot cross-appealed, contending that Wilbur-Ellis could not enforce the restrictive covenants because the employer in the agreement was Wilbur-Ellis Air, LLC, not Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, agreeing that the restrictive covenants did not survive the expiration of the employment agreement. The court emphasized that the agreement did not contain a survival clause or any language indicating that the restrictive covenants were intended to extend beyond the termination of the agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that Wilbur-Ellis was unlikely to succeed on the merits, which is the most significant factor in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. View "Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC v. Jens" on Justia Law

Danette Hester, a Special Agent for the IRS in Iowa, applied for a Criminal Investigator position in Georgia but was not hired. After filing a discrimination complaint, the IRS proposed her termination for alleged misconduct. Hester sued, claiming discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the IRS, and Hester appealed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS on all counts. Hester, a 53-year-old Black woman, alleged retaliation and race, sex, and age discrimination. The district court found that Hester did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Hester met her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination but failed to show that the IRS's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring her was pretextual. The court noted that the IRS limited the hiring to one position due to an upcoming reorganization and that the selected candidate had qualifications Hester lacked, such as fluency in Spanish.Regarding age discrimination, the court found that the four-year age difference between Hester and the selected candidate was not significant enough to support her claim. For the retaliation claim, the court held that Hester did not establish a causal connection between her discrimination complaint and the proposed termination, as the seven-month gap was insufficient to infer causation.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Hester failed to provide evidence that the IRS's reasons for its actions were pretextual or that her age, race, or sex played a role in the decision not to promote her. View "Hester v. U.S. Department of Treasury" on Justia Law

Trenton Johnson, an employee of Concorp, Inc., was injured while performing maintenance work at Exide Technologies, Inc.'s plant in Kansas City, Missouri. Johnson fell into a vat of molten lead while replacing a belt on a conveyor, resulting in severe burns. He subsequently sued Exide for negligence in Missouri state court.The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, where the parties engaged in discovery and briefed the issue of whether Johnson's exclusive remedy was under Missouri's workers' compensation system. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Exide, concluding that Johnson's claim was indeed limited to workers' compensation benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court examined whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Exide and Johnson under Missouri's workers' compensation statute. The court applied the means/control test and the statutory-employee status test. It found that Concorp, not Exide, had the means/control relationship with Johnson. However, the court determined that Johnson was a statutory employee of Exide because his work was performed under a contract and in the usual course of Exide's business.The Eighth Circuit held that Johnson's exclusive remedy for his injuries was through Missouri's workers' compensation system, and Exide was immune from the negligence claim. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Exide. View "Johnson v. Exide Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

LaTonya Jackson, a former patient services coordinator at Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc., was terminated in October 2022. She filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in May 2021, alleging race, age, and disability discrimination, as well as retaliation. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on May 5, 2023. Jackson filed a complaint against Hennepin Healthcare on August 4, 2023, alleging violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). She also initially sued a supervisor, Duang See, but later withdrew that claim.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Jackson's complaint as untimely. The court found that the complaint was filed one day past the ninety-day deadline following the issuance of the right to sue letter. Additionally, the court concluded that Jackson failed to state a claim and had not properly exhausted administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that Jackson's complaint was filed on August 4, 2023, one day after the deadline. The court found no evidence to support Jackson's claim that a computer glitch caused the delay. The court also declined to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling, noting that Jackson had adequate notice of the deadline, was represented by counsel, and there was no misconduct by the defendant or misleading action by the court. The court emphasized that equitable tolling is reserved for circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control, which did not apply in this case. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Jackson v. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc." on Justia Law

Jan Kuklenski was terminated by Medtronic USA, Inc. and subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that her termination violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) due to her disability. Kuklenski had worked for Medtronic since 1999 but had not resided in Minnesota. She occasionally traveled to Minnesota for work until the COVID-19 pandemic, after which she worked remotely. She went on medical leave in June 2021, and after her initial three-month leave expired, Medtronic filled her position and formally terminated her in December 2021.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of Medtronic, concluding that Kuklenski could not bring claims under the MHRA because she did not meet the statutory definition of an “employee,” which requires either residency or physical presence in Minnesota. The court found that Kuklenski had not been physically present in Minnesota for almost two years before her termination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, agreeing that the MHRA’s definition of “employee” requires some degree of physical presence in Minnesota. The court found that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, requiring that an individual must either reside or work within the physical limits of Minnesota to be protected under the MHRA. The court also denied Kuklenski’s request to certify the question to the Minnesota Supreme Court, noting that the case did not present a close question of state law and that certification was not appropriate given the circumstances.The Eighth Circuit held that the MHRA’s definition of “employee” necessitates physical presence in Minnesota, and since Kuklenski had not been physically present in the state for nearly two years, she did not qualify as an employee under the Act. View "Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against Levering Regional Health Care Center and Reliant Care Management Company for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The suit alleged that Levering deducted 30 minutes of pay for employees' meal breaks, despite knowing that employees routinely worked through these breaks. An investigation revealed that many employees did not receive lunch breaks or had them interrupted, and some were unaware of the policy to report missed breaks for compensation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Levering's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that Levering did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the unpaid overtime work due to the employees' failure to use the established reporting policy. Additionally, the court found that the Secretary did not adequately establish the amount of overtime owed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Levering may have failed to effectively communicate its policy to employees, as evidenced by the lack of time sheets submitted during the audit period compared to a later period. The court also found that the Secretary provided enough evidence to estimate the amount of unpaid overtime work, meeting the burden of showing the extent of the work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Micone v. Levering Regional HCC, L.LC." on Justia Law