Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

A company that manufactures emergency-use auto-injectors terminated a senior technician after she certified that a probationary employee completed five on-the-job training (OJT) tasks in a single day. The company alleged that this certification was fraudulent and did not comply with its training policies, as the forms lacked supporting documentation and the employee did not demonstrate proficiency. The technician, a qualified trainer, filed a grievance through her union, arguing that it was common practice on her shift to conduct and certify multiple OJTs in one day and that supervisors were aware of these practices.An arbitrator reviewed the grievance under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the company and the union. The arbitrator found that the company failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the technician’s actions were intentionally fraudulent or falsified. The arbitrator also noted that the company’s staffing shortages and established practices contributed to the situation and drew an adverse inference against the company for not calling key supervisors as witnesses. The arbitrator ordered the technician’s reinstatement with back pay and benefits. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to the union, affirming the arbitrator’s award.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo for legal conclusions and for clear error on factual findings. The Eighth Circuit held that the arbitrator acted within his authority in interpreting ambiguous terms in the CBA, such as “dishonesty,” and in considering past practices. The court also found that the arbitrator’s adverse inference and allocation of the burden of proof were permissible. Finally, the court concluded that reinstating the technician did not violate any well-defined and dominant public policy. The judgment affirming the arbitrator’s award was affirmed. View "Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 688" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a black woman, worked as a Supervisory Medical Support Assistant at the Kansas City Veterans Administration (KCVA). After her supervisor, Angela Frey, was hired, the plaintiff alleged that Frey harassed her from the outset. The plaintiff was eventually assigned to a different position outside her original office and retired from the KCVA over a year later. She claimed that Frey discriminated against her based on race, retaliated against her for complaining about racial discrimination, created a racially hostile work environment, and constructively discharged her.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the KCVA. The district court found that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding denial of training, a negative performance review leading to reassignment, and interference with a job application in Florida were either too vague, unsupported by evidence, or based on inadmissible hearsay. The court also determined that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of discriminatory intent or a causal link between any protected activity and adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court concluded that the incidents described did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment or constructive discharge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed the grant of summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support her claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, or constructive discharge under Title VII. The court emphasized that speculation and conclusory statements were insufficient to create a genuine issue for trial and that the conduct alleged did not meet the legal threshold for actionable discrimination or harassment. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Sherman v. Collins" on Justia Law

An employee at a Home Depot store in New Brighton, Minnesota, wrote “BLM” (Black Lives Matter) on their required work apron as a symbol of solidarity against prejudice and racism. This occurred in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, which had sparked significant civil unrest in the Minneapolis area, including near the store. The store had experienced incidents of racial tension among employees, complaints about discriminatory conduct, and vandalism of a Black History Month display. Management directed the employee to remove the “BLM” message, citing company policy prohibiting political messages unrelated to workplace matters on uniforms. The employee refused, insisting the message was necessary to support coworkers of color, and subsequently resigned.After resigning, the employee filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that Home Depot violated Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by prohibiting the display of “BLM” on aprons. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint, finding that the display was not concerted activity protected by Section 7, as it was not coordinated among employees and had only an indirect relationship to workplace issues. The NLRB reversed the ALJ, holding that the refusal to remove the “BLM” message was protected concerted activity, and that Home Depot’s enforcement of its dress code and constructive discharge of the employee violated Section 8(a)(1). The Board ordered Home Depot to reinstate the employee with back pay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Home Depot had established “special circumstances” justifying its enforcement of the dress code policy at this location and time, given the heightened tensions and safety concerns following local unrest. The court vacated the NLRB’s order and remanded for further proceedings, declining to address other issues. View "Home Depot U.S.A. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

In 2024, Minnesota enacted a law that revised the criteria for classifying independent contractors in the construction industry, expanding a previous nine-part test to a fourteen-part test. Several construction industry organizations and a general contractor challenged the law, arguing that certain provisions were unconstitutionally vague and that the civil penalties authorized by the statute violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs specifically objected to requirements regarding written contracts, invoicing, expense responsibility, and profit or loss realization, as well as the potential for significant civil penalties for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law, as they alleged specific conduct targeted by the statute and faced a credible threat of enforcement. However, the court concluded that the challenged statutory terms were sufficiently clear for people of ordinary intelligence and did not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court also determined that the plaintiffs’ excessive fines claim was premature, as no penalties had yet been imposed and Minnesota law requires a proportionality analysis before penalties are assessed. Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court found no basis for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Blissenbach" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who worked for a bank that operated a branch inside a public high school, was terminated from her employment after she publicly criticized the local school district’s mask mandate on social media and at school events. The bank’s operation at the school was part of a partnership in which the bank provided funds and services to the school district. The plaintiff’s children attended schools in the district, and she was active in school-related activities. After a series of confrontations and a critical Facebook post about a school board member, the school superintendent communicated with the bank’s branch manager, expressing disapproval of the plaintiff’s conduct and requesting that she be barred from school property. The bank subsequently suspended and then fired the plaintiff, citing her conduct and the school’s ban.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding that the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were not violated and that there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy or tortious interference. The court applied the Pickering balancing test, treating the plaintiff as a government contractor, and found no actionable retaliation. It also found no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the bank and the school district, and held that the superintendent and other officials were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The court held that the plaintiff was not a government employee or contractor for First Amendment purposes and was entitled to ordinary citizen protections. It found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the superintendent, the bank, and the branch manager retaliated against the plaintiff for protected speech, and whether the superintendent tortiously interfered with her employment. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for the school board chair and the school district, finding insufficient evidence of their direct involvement or policy liability. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McNeally v. HomeTown Bank" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an hourly licensed attorney document reviewer, worked for a legal document review company with offices in Minnesota. In 2019, the company changed its overtime policy, eliminating premium overtime pay and stating that employees would be paid only their base rate for all hours worked. In 2020, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, alleging that the company failed to pay required overtime wages, in violation of the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act (MPWA), the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA), and the Minnesota Wage Theft Act (MWTA). The company subsequently paid the plaintiff and other affected employees all claimed overtime wages and liquidated damages, but the parties disagreed about the availability of statutory penalties.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims. The court did not address whether the employer had violated the statutes, as the parties had stipulated that the only remaining dispute concerned penalties. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that he was entitled to statutory penalties and injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court held that only the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, not individual employees, may seek average daily wage penalties under the MPWA. Regarding the MFLSA claim, the court found that, because the plaintiff had received all owed wages and liquidated damages, and because penalties are payable to the Commissioner, there was a question of mootness and standing. The court vacated the summary judgment on the MFLSA claim and remanded for the district court to determine its jurisdiction. The court affirmed the dismissal of the MWTA claim and the denial of injunctive relief, finding no statutory basis for penalties and that the request for injunctive relief was not properly before the court. View "Cohen v. Consilio, LLC" on Justia Law

Brandon King worked as a driver for United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) and believed he was hired for a Monday-to-Friday schedule. However, UPS assigned him to a Tuesday-through-Saturday schedule, which included weekend work he sought to avoid through various means, such as maximizing weekday hours, trading shifts, and calling in sick. UPS disciplined him for these actions, including written warnings and supervisor ride-alongs, and fired him multiple times, though the union secured his reinstatement. King alleged that UPS discriminated against him based on race and age, created a hostile work environment, and retaliated against him, claiming that younger, white employees were allowed to avoid Saturday shifts and were disciplined less harshly for similar conduct.King filed suit in Iowa state court under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. UPS removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, arguing that the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) completely preempted King’s state law claims because resolving them would require interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement. The district court denied King’s motion to remand the case to state court and granted UPS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that King’s claims were preempted and that he failed to state a claim under federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed both the refusal to remand and the judgment on the pleadings de novo. The court held that King’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims were substantially dependent on analysis of the collective-bargaining agreement and thus completely preempted by the LMRA, requiring dismissal. The retaliation claim failed because King did not plausibly allege a causal connection between protected activity and adverse employment action. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "King v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

Two former employees of a steel plant in Blytheville, Arkansas, brought claims against their employer, alleging racial discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. One employee, who worked at the plant for nearly three decades, was terminated after a series of disciplinary incidents, including an altercation during an internal investigation and subsequent violations of workplace policies. The other employee, who resigned after several years, claimed he was subjected to disparate discipline and racially offensive remarks by supervisors, including an incident where a supervisor referred to himself as a “slave driver” and mimed cracking a whip.After the plaintiffs filed suit in Arkansas state court, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiffs amended their complaint, dropping federal claims and non-diverse parties, leaving only state law claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on all claims, finding insufficient evidence to support the allegations of discrimination, retaliation, or a hostile work environment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination or retaliation, as there was no evidence of similarly situated employees being treated more favorably or of a causal connection between protected activity and adverse employment actions. The court also found that the incidents cited did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment, particularly given the employer’s prompt and effective responses to reported incidents. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. View "Warren v. Nucor Corporation" on Justia Law

A black employee of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs alleged that his supervisors failed to provide adequate training, assigned him tasks outside his job description, denied him the ability to work from home during the early COVID-19 pandemic while allowing a white employee to do so, and pressured him to write a false report about another black employee. He also described incidents where he was charged as absent without leave, received a negative performance appraisal, was suspended for workplace conduct, and was assigned to less desirable work shifts. The employee claimed these actions were motivated by racial discrimination and retaliation for prior protected activity.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The district court found that the employee failed to establish that he suffered an adverse employment action based on race, that the alleged comparators were similarly situated, or that the employer’s stated reasons for its actions were pretextual. The court also concluded that the evidence did not support a claim of a racially hostile work environment or unlawful retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the employee did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding disparate treatment, hostile work environment, or retaliation under Title VII. Specifically, the court found that the negative performance appraisal and other alleged actions did not constitute adverse employment actions affecting the terms or conditions of employment, that there was no evidence of similarly situated comparators, and that the employer’s explanations were not shown to be pretextual. The court also determined that the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment, and that the timing and evidence did not support a claim of retaliation. The district court’s grant of summary judgment was affirmed. View "Woods v. Collins" on Justia Law

A train conductor and other women working at a Nebraska railyard alleged that they were subjected to frequent sex-based harassment by coworkers and supervisors. The allegations included unwelcome sexual advances, derogatory comments about women’s abilities, sexually explicit jokes, persistent sexual graffiti in work areas, unsanitary restroom conditions intentionally created to harass women, and the display of sexually explicit images. The employer’s supervisors allegedly failed to address complaints, sometimes responding dismissively or with humor. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigated these claims, found reasonable cause to believe that Title VII had been violated, and, after unsuccessful conciliation, filed suit on behalf of the named conductor and a group of similarly aggrieved women.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed the EEOC’s claims on behalf of the group of women, holding that the EEOC failed to plead that the group suffered the same type of harassment as the named conductor and did not adequately specify the class size. The court later granted summary judgment to the employer on the individual claim, finding that the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment under Title VII, and that conduct outside the statutory limitations period was not part of a continuing violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed both the dismissal and the summary judgment. The appellate court held that the district court erred by imposing heightened pleading requirements not supported by law, and that the EEOC’s complaint plausibly alleged a hostile work environment for the group. The Eighth Circuit also found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment and whether pre- and post-limitations conduct formed a continuing violation. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "EEOC v. BNSF Railway Company" on Justia Law