Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

ExxonMobil Technology and Engineering Company (Exxon) operates a research facility in New Jersey where approximately 165 employees are represented by the Independent Laboratory Employees Union (the Union). The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Exxon and the Union expired in May 2018. During negotiations for a new CBA, disputes arose over Exxon’s personal time off (PTO) policies and paid parental leave (PPTO). The Union wanted to restore a policy allowing supervisors to review PTO requests and sought eight weeks of PPTO for its members. Exxon refused to negotiate on these issues, citing concerns over inconsistencies and potential grievances.An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Exxon violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain in good faith on the supervisor PTO review issue, retaliating against the Union for past grievances, and suggesting that employees would receive PPTO if they decertified the Union. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) initially reversed the ALJ’s findings in a 2020 decision. However, it was later discovered that a Board member involved in the decision had a conflict of interest, leading the NLRB to vacate the 2020 decision and reconsider the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 2020 decision due to the conflict of interest. The court also upheld the NLRB’s findings that Exxon refused to bargain in good faith on the supervisor PTO review issue and retaliated against the Union for past grievances. Additionally, the court supported the NLRB’s conclusion that Exxon unlawfully suggested employees would receive PPTO if they left the Union. The court denied Exxon’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order. View "ExxonMobil v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) operates a space launch business and a global satellite-based internet service called Starlink. In June 2022, a group of SpaceX employees sent an open letter demanding certain actions from the company and solicited support through a survey. SpaceX discharged four employees involved in the letter's distribution for violating company policies. Additional employees were later discharged for lying during a leak investigation and for unrelated performance issues. These employees filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in November 2022, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act.The NLRB Regional Director found merit in the claims and issued an order consolidating the employees' cases with a hearing set for March 2024. SpaceX sued the NLRB in the Southern District of Texas (SDTX) in January 2024, challenging the NLRB's structure as unconstitutional and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The NLRB moved to transfer the case to the Central District of California (CDCA), arguing improper venue. The SDTX granted the transfer motion in February 2024. SpaceX petitioned for an emergency writ of mandamus to vacate the transfer order, which was initially stayed but later denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. SpaceX argued that the district court effectively denied its motion for a preliminary injunction by failing to rule on it by May 2, 2024. The Fifth Circuit found that SpaceX did not demonstrate the "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence" required for an immediate appeal. The court noted that participating in the administrative proceeding did not constitute irreparable harm and that the district court did not act unreasonably in waiting to resolve procedural challenges. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed SpaceX's appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Douglas Ramsey, the plaintiff, sued his former employer, Sheet Pile, L.L.C., for breach of his employment agreement and a promissory note under which he had loaned the company money. Sheet Pile counterclaimed for breach of the employment agreement and sought an injunction to force Ramsey to return confidential information. Ramsey largely succeeded at trial, receiving an award for prejudgment interest and the denial of Sheet Pile’s requested injunction. Sheet Pile appealed, challenging the jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, the grant of prejudgment interest, and the denial of injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas oversaw the initial trial. The jury found in favor of Ramsey, awarding him the final $5,000 of his salary and $155,878.47 in damages on the loan. The jury also found that Ramsey breached the employment agreement but was not liable due to Sheet Pile’s prior material breach. After the trial, the district court awarded Ramsey prejudgment interest and denied Sheet Pile’s request for a permanent injunction. Sheet Pile filed a post-judgment motion reiterating its arguments, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions on the jury instructions and the finding of prior material breach. However, it vacated the award of prejudgment interest, finding that the jury had improperly included interest in its damages award, leading to a double recovery. The court remanded the case for the district court to offer a remittitur based on the amount owed on the loan as of the date Ramsey filed suit. The court also instructed the district court to consider an injunction requiring Ramsey to return any documents containing confidential information. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ramsey v. Sheet Pile" on Justia Law

Annette Rodriguez, the plaintiff, served as the Director of the City of Corpus Christi and Nueces County Public Health District. Her salary was split between the City and the County. In 2019, the City increased her salary to 90% of the market rate. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Rodriguez requested and initially received overtime pay, but the City later stopped these payments. Rodriguez faced several allegations of policy violations and creating a hostile work environment, leading to a disciplinary memorandum. Despite a positive evaluation from the County, the City terminated her in 2022 and hired a new director.Rodriguez sued the City in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, claiming violations under the Equal Pay Act, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed her Section 1983 claim on the pleadings, finding she did not allege a constitutionally protected interest in continued employment. The court granted summary judgment to the City on the remaining claims, concluding Rodriguez was exempt from FLSA overtime pay requirements, did not establish the equal-work or equal-pay prongs of her EPA claim, and failed to identify a proper comparator for her Title VII claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's rulings, agreeing that Rodriguez did not engage in protected activity under the FLSA, failed to identify a proper comparator for her Title VII and EPA claims, and did not establish pretext for retaliation. The court also found that Rodriguez remained an exempt employee despite receiving additional overtime pay temporarily. The court concluded that the City paid Rodriguez on a salary basis, maintaining her exempt status under the FLSA. View "Rodriguez v. City of Corpus Christi" on Justia Law

Three states challenged an executive order issued by President Joseph R. Biden, which mandated that federal contractors pay their workers a minimum hourly wage of $15. The states argued that the President exceeded his authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) and that the order violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the nondelegation doctrine. The district court for the Southern District of Texas agreed with the states, finding that the FPASA did not grant the President broad authority to set minimum wages for federal contractors and that the executive order was a major question beyond the President's authority. The court permanently enjoined the executive order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the executive order was a permissible exercise of the President's authority under the FPASA. The court found that the FPASA's language was clear and unambiguous, granting the President broad authority to prescribe policies necessary to carry out the Act's provisions, as long as those policies were consistent with the Act. The court determined that the executive order met these requirements, as it aimed to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement by ensuring contractors paid their workers adequately.The Fifth Circuit also addressed the application of the major questions doctrine, concluding that it did not apply in this case because the FPASA's text was clear and unambiguous. The court noted that the President's exercise of proprietary authority in managing federal contracts did not raise a major question requiring clear congressional authorization. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's permanent injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State of Texas v. Trump" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two oilfield workers, filed suit against their employer for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, based on the company's affirmative defense that plaintiffs fell under the administrative exemption of the FLSA. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that genuine disputes of material fact affect whether the exemption applies to plaintiffs. In this case, the limited factual record could reasonably be interpreted to provide two different understandings of the scope of plaintiffs' discretionary authority and independent judgment. View "Dewan v. M-I, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury found that EmCare terminated three employees in retaliation for complaining of sexual harassment in the workplace, the district court denied EmCare's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the EEOC presented sufficient evidence of causation because the jury could have logically inferred that the supervisor knew of one of the employee's complaints or that the supervisor was involved in the decision to fire the employee. View "EEOC v. Emcare, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., against Defendants Galliano Marine Service and C-Innovation, seeking to recover unpaid wages for overtime worked during his employment at C-Innovation. Defendants run a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) business for offshore applications and employed plaintiff as an ROV Technician and ROV Supervisor. The district court granted summary judgment against plaintiff. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment because it has not been established as a matter of law that the seaman exemption applies. In this case, competing testimonial evidence regarding whether plaintiff was a master or subject to the authority, direction, and control of the master aboard a vessel precludes summary judgment. Furthermore, the district court must determine what proportion of plaintiff's time is spent on seaman's work. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Halle v. Galliano Marine Service, LLC" on Justia Law

This consolidated case under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 883, and general maritime law, involved an accident on a barge in the navigable waterways of Louisiana. Defendant, the barge owner, appealed the district court's judgment for plaintiffs. The court held that evidence supported the district court's award to plaintiff McBride for pre-death fear and conscious pain and suffering, and the district court's award of damages for loss of past and future support was not clearly erroneous. The court also concluded that the district court's award of future cure until plaintiff Touchet reaches maximum medical improvement and for future medical expenses beyond Touchet's maximum medical improvement was not reversible error. Finally, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Touchet was permanently disabled and by awarding damages for lost earnings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "McBride v. Estis Well Service, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a GM employee, filed suit against GM for interference and retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; and for violation of Texas law. The district court granted summary judgment for GM. The court concluded that the FMLA and accompanying regulations require employees to follow their employer's "usual and customary" procedures for requesting FMLA leave absent "unusual circumstances." In this case, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there were unusual circumstances arising from his condition that prevented him from complying with GM's call-in policy. Therefore, plaintiff failed to raise a fact issue for FMLA interference. The court also concluded that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation where he has not shown how his disciplinary leave was caused by his attempts to seek protection under the FMLA instead of his failure to follow GM's attendance and absence approval process; plaintiff failed to demonstrate that GM denied him a reasonable accommodation under the ADA; and plaintiff's Texas law claim also failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Acker v. General Motors, LLC" on Justia Law