Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a former transport deputy for the county, filed suit against Sheriff Andy Shock, in his individual and official capacities, for unlawful employment termination under state and federal law. Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging the deprivation of his First Amendment right to free association. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim against the sheriff in his official capacity because, under Arkansas law and the policies promoted by the county, the sheriff did not act as a final policymaker in the employment decisions of the sheriff's office where such decisions were subject to review by the quorum court. However, the court vacated the finding of qualified immunity for the sheriff in his individual capacity because the district court should have applied the Elrod-Branti analysis to determine whether a government employer could violate an employee's First Amendment rights even if acting under the mistaken belief that the employee was affiliated with a certain candidate. The court explained that the Elrod-Brandi test applied when a constitutional right at issue involved joining, working for or contributing to the political party and candidates of the employee's choice. Therefore, the court remanded that issue for the district court to apply the analysis in the Elrod-Branti line of cases. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Thompson v. Shock" on Justia Law

Cargill petitioned for review of the Board's order concluding that the company engaged in unfair labor practices when it refused to bargain with the Union, in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5). The court concluded that the Union did not run afoul of 29 C.F.R. 102.65(e)(1), which prohibits a motion for reconsideration, rehearing, or reopening of the record on a matter that could have been raised in the earlier proceedings; the court rejected Cargill's argument that the Board erred in declining to dismiss the second petition; the Board reasonably determined that the packaging, shipping, and receiving employees were readily identifiable as a group and share a community of interest; the Board also reasonably determined that Cargill failed to show that the terminal, quality-control, and maintenance employees, all of whom were excluded from the bargaining unit, shared an "overwhelming community of interest" with the bargaining-unit employees such that their exclusion from the unit rendered it inappropriate; the Board's finding that, even accepting the testimony of Cargill's witnesses, the company had failed to establish that the complained-of conduct created the necessary atmosphere of fear and reprisal that rendered a free election impossible, was supported by substantial evidence; and because there was no employee conduct sufficiently objectionable to require action by the Board's agent, the Board did not err in concluding that Cargill failed to establish that the Board agent's conduct cast a reasonable doubt on the Board's neutrality or the integrity of the election. Accordingly, the court denied the petition and enforced the order. View "Cargill, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CSM, alleging civil rights violations after she was terminated. The district court granted summary judgment to CSM. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish the causation element of her prima facie case of retaliation and reprisal based on the attenuated temporal proximity of the decline in her work performance and the her complaints, and the lack of evidence from which a jury could infer a discriminatory motive. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to CSM on these claims. The court also concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's gender discrimination claims where plaintiff had a history of satisfactory performance and the evidence demonstrated that her supervisors and coworkers had on numerous occasions informed her of perceived deficiencies in her work. Finally, the court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to CSM on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim where she failed prove that the comments at issue were so objectively and subjectively offensive that they altered the terms and conditions of her employment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Liles v. C.S. McCrossan, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that BNSF violated the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109, when it terminated his employment for harassing a co-worker and threatening a supervisor. The district court ultimately granted BNSF summary judgment on the merits and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim because he failed to submit evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to infer that his FRSA-protected activities were a contributing factor in BNSF's decision to discharge him for harassing and intimidating a co-worker. Because BNSF did not sufficiently develop its alternative waiver argument, did not raise a laches or estoppel defense in the district court or on appeal, and presented insufficient proof (if any) on these fact intensive issues, the court left these questions for another day. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gunderson v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law

This case arose out of Chipotle's decision to fire an employee who was involved in a campaign for higher pay in the fast-food industry. The Board claimed that Chipotle fired the employee for his union activities, but Chipotle argued that the employee was fired for missing a mandatory meeting and had a history of deficient performance and motivation. The Board applied the Wright Line framework and described the General Counsel's initial burden. Chipotle argued that the burden was a mistake and the General Counsel instead needed to act according to the language in the court's recent opinion in Nichols Aluminum, LLC v. NLRB. Because Chipotle failed to raise this argument before the Board, or otherwise contest the ALJ's application of the Wright Line standard, the court was jurisdictionally barred from considering Chipotle's argument. Because no extraordinary circumstances exists in this case, the court denied the petition and enforced the order. View "NLRB v. Chipotle Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an African American female, filed suit against DHS, alleging disparate treatment on account of race, and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 and 2000e-3(a). The district court dismissed the claims. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court erred in dismissing her claim for disparate treatment "on account of her race, when she was disciplined for something that a Caucasian female employee did not accomplish." The court concluded that plaintiff's claim of discipline did not allege that the Caucasian employee was not disciplined or received less discipline. The court explained that without an allegation of disparate treatment, this claim failed. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in dismissing the retaliation claim where plaintiff alleged but-for causation. The court explained that plaintiff's claim permitted the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Wilson v. Arkansas DHS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Optomec, alleging that he was terminated on account of his age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. 363A.01 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Optomec because plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The court reasoned that, even if he had, there was insufficient evidence to suggest the lawful reason Optomec gave for its decision was pretext for an underlying unlawful motive. In this case, Optomec's reasons for firing plaintiff was that he lacked the skill set and potential Optomec wanted from lab technicians to account for the company's anticipated growth. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Nash v. Optomec, Inc." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was seriously injured on the job, BNSF disciplined him for violations of BNSF rules that led to his injury. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that BNSF's discipline violated the employee-protections provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 20109(a)(4). The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for BNSF, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish that his supervisors intentionally retaliated against him for filing his injury report. In this case, without more specific evidence of an improper retaliatory motive, the court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. View "Heim v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was disciplined by his employer, BNSF, for not promptly reporting a workplace injury, he filed suit claiming that BNSF's discipline violated the employee-protections provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 20109(a)(4). The jury awarded plaintiff damages for emotion distress. The court concluded, however, that its decision in Kuduk v. BNSF Railway Co. required plaintiff to establish intentional retaliation and that the jury instructions did not compel such a finding. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Blackorby v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Chipotle, alleging claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. State. 363A et seq., for reprisal, age discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination. On appeal, plaintiff challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment on his reprisal claim. Chipotle claims that he was discharged due to declining work effort and performance. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Chipotle’s stated reason for terminating his employment was pretextual. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that his reprisal claim under the MHRA fails as a matter of law and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sieden v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc." on Justia Law