Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against NSP under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219, for failure to pay overtime wages. On appeal, NSP challenged the district court's denial of its motion for summary judgement and grant of partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether plaintiff was an exempt employee and not entitled to overtime pay. In this case, there are genuine issues related to whether plaintiff's primary duties were directly related to management and general business operations, and whether plaintiff exercised discretion and independent judgment in matters of significance. View "Grage v. Northern States Power Co." on Justia Law

Mechanics, members of the Union and employees of Metro, filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration under section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (UMTA), 49 U.S.C. 5333, that Metro must establish a framework through which they could form a bargaining unit separate from the Union. The Union intervened and the district court granted the Union's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that section 13(c) does not entitle mechanics to the relief they seek because Congress did not intend to provide a federal forum for disputes between unions and transit authorities; the language and structure of section 13(c) does not suggest that Congress intended to create a federal private cause of action; and the consistent theme in Section 13(c)’s legislative history was that “Congress intended that labor relations between transit workers and local governments would be controlled by state law[.]" Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Stenger v. Bi-State Dev. Agency" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, 19 workers employed by Degeller, filed a class action suit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated Deggeller employees. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the breach of contract claim where the workers’ allegation that Deggeller failed to pay the prevailing wage stated a valid claim for breach of their employment contracts. The court also concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the workers' claim for statutory damages under 26 U.S.C. 7434 because they alleged that Deggeller intentionally filed fraudulent tax documents on their behalf. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of these claims and vacate its decision under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Arkansas minimum wage claim. View "Cuellar-Aguilar v. Deggeller Attractions, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, six homecare providers, filed suit challenging Minnesota's Individual Providers of Direct Support Services Representation Act, Minn. Stat. 179A.54, 179A.06. The Act allows homecare providers for Medicaid program participants to unionize. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' Supremacy Clause claim because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 152, does not preempt Minnesota's regulation of domestic service workers; plaintiffs' state preemption argument against the SEIU failed because even if the state laws conflict irreconcilably, the law passed most recently by the legislature controls and thus the Act trumps the older statute's definition of "employees;" the district court properly dismissed the providers' tortious interference claim against the state defendants because federal courts are unable to order state officials to conform their conduct to state law; and the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' Contract Clause claims where plaintiffs did not have authority to negotiate compensation or benefits terms with program participants. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Greene v. Dayton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his disability discrimination and constructive discharge claims against SNS. The court concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable person would not have found his work environment intolerable. Therefore, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to SNS on plaintiff's claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 213. The court concluded that the fact that an employee is disciplined in accordance with an employment policy is not enough to prove a constructive discharge claim under the MHRA. In this case, while one of plaintiff's supervisors laughed when asked about plaintiff's future at SNS and another supervisor told plaintiff that "this" would continue if he did not resign, the evidence was insufficient to create a material factual dispute about whether plaintiff's work environment was intolerable. The court also concluded that plaintiff did not give SNS a reasonable opportunity to resolve any problems with supervisors and plaintiff admits that he never complained about his supervisors during his employment. Therefore, the district court properly granted SNS summary judgment on plaintiff's constructive discharge claim. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Cosby v. Steak N Shake" on Justia Law

The Army hired URS to destroy munitions at a facility in Arkansas. Smith, a black male, was hired by URS as a full-time temporary instructor/trainer for employees on the Arkansas project. Within months URS hired another black male and a white male (Griffin) for training positions; there were already four individual with various credentials in training positions. Smith alleges that the white man was paid more for essentially the same work and was given a favorable ranking in deciding which trainers should be terminated first, notwithstanding the fact that Griffin had a disciplinary report in his personnel files, for distributing purportedly obscene material in a class. Smith and testified that Griffin had openly conducted a side-business of selling health drinks from his office space at URS on company time without being disciplined. After being terminated during a reduction in forces, Smith sued, alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of URS, noting “evidence of dissembling” that a jury could rely upon to discount URS's claimed rationales for its actions. View "Smith v. URS Corp." on Justia Law

Loren Cook manufactures air circulating equipment, using lathes to form and mold metal discs. Lathes operate by holding heavily lubricated pieces of metal that rotate rapidly, allowing the lathe operator to apply tools to shape the metal into individual workpieces. In 2009, a Loren Cook lathe operator was killed when a 12-pound rotating metal workpiece broke free from the lathe, flew out of his machine at 50-70 mph, and struck him in the head, then traveled along the floor at least another 20 feet before crashing into metal shelving. The Department of Labor issued two citations, finding seven violations of 29 C.F.R. 1910.212(a)(1) for failure to employ barrier guards to protect workers from ejected workpieces, resulting in a total fine of $490,000. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission adopted an ALJ’s decision vacated the fine. The Eighth Circuit initially reversed, but on rehearing en banc, affirmed the Commission’s order, agreeing that section 1910.212(a)(1) focuses on point-of-contact risks and risks associated with routine operation of lathes, such as flakes and sparks, but does not contemplate the catastrophic failure of a lathe that would result in a workpiece being thrown out of the lathe. View "Perez v. Loren Cook Co." on Justia Law