Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Hiran Management, a small karaoke restaurant in Houston, Texas, employed eight front-of-house workers who became dissatisfied with their manager’s practices, including being assigned extra duties without increased pay and inconsistent compensation for “shift supervisor” roles. After a contentious meeting with management, the employees walked out, went on strike, and presented a list of demands. The employer subsequently terminated all eight striking employees.Following these terminations, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed an administrative complaint, alleging that Hiran Management violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by firing the employees for engaging in protected concerted activity. An administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the NLRB, and the Board adopted the ALJ’s findings with minor adjustments. The Board ordered Hiran to cease its unfair labor practices, reinstate the employees, and compensate them for lost earnings and all other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms resulting from the terminations.Hiran Management petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, while the NLRB sought enforcement of its order. The Fifth Circuit held that the NLRB lacks statutory authority under the NLRA to award full compensatory damages for all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, as such damages are legal rather than equitable remedies. The court granted Hiran’s petition in part, denied the NLRB’s enforcement petition in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, limiting the NLRB’s remedial authority to equitable relief such as reinstatement and backpay. View "Hiran Management v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Felicia Scroggins, a pro se plaintiff, brought claims against the City of Shreveport alleging race and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation, under Title VII. Her allegations included being incorrectly reprimanded for a safety incident, being compelled to undergo a fit-for-duty evaluation, and being disciplined for backing a fire engine into a fence. She also challenged the fairness of the bidding procedures for job assignments, claiming they were applied to her in a discriminatory manner.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana reviewed the case. After Scroggins’s counsel withdrew, the district court granted her several extensions to find new counsel before ruling on the City’s motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that Scroggins failed to produce competent summary judgment evidence of pretext for her retaliation claims and that, although she established a prima facie case of discrimination, the City provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which she did not rebut.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered Scroggins’s arguments that the district court erred by granting summary judgment before she could secure new counsel and by inadequately analyzing her claims under the McDonnell Douglas framework. The Fifth Circuit held that Scroggins forfeited her arguments by failing to cite relevant authority and failing to point to evidence in the record to support her claims. The court also found that the district court properly assumed adverse employment actions for purposes of the retaliation claims and correctly applied the McDonnell Douglas test to both discrimination and retaliation claims. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Scroggins v. City of Shreveport" on Justia Law

A flight attendant employed by an airline and represented by a labor union was terminated after sending graphic anti-abortion images and messages to the union president and posting similar content on social media. The employee, a pro-life Christian and vocal opponent of the union, had previously resigned her union membership but remained subject to union fees. The union’s leadership had participated in the Women’s March, which the employee viewed as union-sponsored support for abortion, prompting her messages. The airline investigated and concluded that while some content was offensive, only certain images violated company policy. The employee was terminated for violating social media, bullying, and harassment policies.Following termination, the employee filed a grievance, which the union represented. The airline offered reinstatement contingent on a last-chance agreement, which the employee declined, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator found just cause for termination. The employee then sued both the airline and the union in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging violations of Title VII and the Railway Labor Act (RLA), among other claims. The district court dismissed some claims, allowed others to proceed, and after a jury trial, found in favor of the employee on several Title VII and RLA claims. The court awarded reinstatement, backpay, and issued a broad permanent injunction against the airline and union, later holding the airline in contempt for its compliance with the judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for the employee on her belief-based Title VII and RLA retaliation claims against the airline, remanding with instructions to enter judgment for the airline on those claims. The court affirmed the judgment against the airline on practice-based Title VII claims and affirmed all claims against the union. The court vacated the permanent injunction and contempt sanction, remanding for further proceedings, and granted the employee’s motion to remand appellate attorney’s fees to the district court. View "Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America Local 556" on Justia Law

A correctional officer employed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for 18 years suffered from diabetes, hypertension, and chronic back pain. She took intermittent leave under TDCJ’s leave-without-pay (LWOP) policy, which allowed up to 180 days of leave in a rolling 12-month period. After returning from leave in 2017, she was reassigned to a less desirable shift without explanation, leading her to file internal grievances and an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint. Although her grievance was sustained and she was returned to her preferred shift, subsequent confusion over her LWOP balance resulted in her termination in 2018. She later reapplied for her job but was not rehired, despite recommendations in her favor and a shortage of correctional officers.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas heard her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. After a jury trial, she prevailed on all counts, receiving $1.8 million in damages, which the district court reduced to $1 million after excluding emotional distress damages per Supreme Court precedent. The court denied the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, entering final judgment for the plaintiff and awarding attorney’s fees and costs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that monetary relief against the executive director under the ADA was barred by sovereign immunity and reversed that portion of the judgment. The court affirmed the jury’s findings on discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act against TDCJ, but found the $1 million damages award included amounts that should have been considered front pay, not back pay, and remanded for recalculation. The court also vacated the attorney’s fee award against the executive director and remanded for reconsideration of fees against TDCJ. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated, and remanded. View "Harmon v. Collier" on Justia Law

A group of former employees, most of whom are Black, brought claims against their former employer, an IT company, and its parent corporation. They alleged race discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation for opposing discrimination, citing actions such as terminations, denials of promotions, and workplace policies they believed targeted Black employees. The plaintiffs described being subjected to stricter rules, surveillance, and less favorable treatment compared to non-Black employees. One plaintiff, who is white, also alleged retaliation for supporting his Black colleagues.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment to the employer on all hostile work environment claims and on certain discrimination and retaliation claims, finding insufficient evidence of an “ultimate employment decision” as required by then-controlling precedent. The court also excluded some witness testimony. At trial, a jury found for nine plaintiffs on discrimination and retaliation claims, awarding substantial damages. However, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to the employer on most claims, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts, and to the parent company, concluding it was not an “integrated enterprise” with the employer. The court also granted a new trial on two retaliation claims, finding the verdicts contrary to the weight of the evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It vacated the summary judgment on certain discrimination and retaliation claims, remanding those for further proceedings in light of new precedent that broadened the definition of adverse employment actions. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in all other respects, including the grants of JMOL, the new trial orders, the exclusion of witness testimony, and the finding that the parent company was not liable as an integrated enterprise. View "Yarbrough v. SlashSupport" on Justia Law

An employee at a meatpacking plant in Texas died after contracting COVID-19, allegedly from a coworker who continued working after testing positive. The decedent’s family sued the plant manager, the safety manager, and the coworker in Texas state court, claiming negligence and gross negligence due to unsafe working conditions and inadequate precautions against COVID-19. The complaint alleged that the employer, Tyson Foods, failed to protect employees, and that the managers were responsible for workplace safety. The coworker was accused of coming to work and failing to take precautions after testing positive.The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, arguing that the Texas-based managers were improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The district court agreed, dismissed the claims against the managers with prejudice, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Tyson Foods was later added as a defendant. The district court then dismissed the claims against Tyson on the grounds that they were preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), and dismissed the claims against the coworker for failure to state a claim, finding no individual duty to prevent the spread of disease under Texas law. The court denied leave to amend the complaint as futile and entered final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to remand and the dismissal of the coworker, holding that the managers were improperly joined and that Texas law does not impose an individual duty on coworkers to prevent the spread of disease. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claims against Tyson, holding that the PPIA does not preempt state law negligence claims based on workplace safety unrelated to food adulteration. The court vacated the denial of leave to amend and remanded for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Wingrove" on Justia Law

A white male lieutenant who had worked for the Louisiana State Police since 1995 applied for promotion to captain 31 times between 2008 and 2021 but was never selected. He alleged that, on at least two occasions, he was the most qualified candidate but was passed over in favor of non-white applicants. The two specific promotions at issue involved positions in specialized divisions where the selected candidates, both non-white, had prior experience in those divisions, while the plaintiff did not. The plaintiff claimed he had higher test scores, more time in grade, and more commendations than the selected candidates. Instead of promotion, he was offered opportunities to gain broader experience and interview advice, but he chose to retire and then filed suit alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as constructive discharge and retaliation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed the § 1981, constructive discharge, and retaliation claims, finding the § 1981 claim time-barred by Louisiana’s one-year statute of limitations for such actions. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the employer on the Title VII claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to rebut the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its promotion decisions—namely, the selected candidates’ relevant experience in the specific divisions. The court found no evidence that race was a motivating factor in the decisions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding pretext or mixed-motive discrimination under Title VII. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the § 1981 claim, agreeing that the one-year limitations period applied because the promotion would have created a new and distinct employment relationship. View "Stelly v. Dept of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Donald Wright was employed by Honeywell International for fourteen years as a Dock B Operator. In 2021, Honeywell instituted a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in response to a federal executive order affecting federal contractors. Wright, a Baptist Christian, requested a religious exemption from the policy, citing his belief in God-given bodily autonomy and referencing certain scriptural passages. He also submitted a third-party attestation from his daughter, who explained their shared religious beliefs. Honeywell denied his exemption request, stating that Wright had not adequately identified a sincerely held religious belief prohibiting vaccination. Wright was subsequently suspended and then terminated for failing to comply with the vaccination requirement.Wright filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, after receiving a right-to-sue letter, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. He alleged religious discrimination and disparate treatment under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Honeywell on all claims, finding that Wright had not provided sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a bona fide religious belief or that he had informed Honeywell of such a belief. Wright’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he appealed, but only as to the religious discrimination claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment decision de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that Wright had presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he held a bona fide religious belief and whether he informed Honeywell of that belief. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Title VII religious discrimination claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not address the disparate treatment claim or the motion for reconsideration, as those issues were either not appealed or rendered moot. View "Wright v. Honeywell International" on Justia Law

Jose E. Amstutz, a police officer employed by Harris County Precinct 6, was terminated after his wife filed a police report alleging domestic abuse. Amstutz was placed on leave and later terminated following an internal investigation that found he violated several policies. Amstutz claimed his wife had a history of making false allegations and had informed his supervisors about this potential. After his termination, Amstutz struggled to find other law enforcement employment, which he attributed to the General Discharge noted in his F-5 report.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Amstutz’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for not responding to the timeliness challenge. The court also dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, finding that he had not pleaded a protected property interest in his at-will employment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the ADEA claims, agreeing that Amstutz failed to address the timeliness challenge, thus waiving opposition to that argument. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims, concluding that Amstutz did not identify any independent source of law that would create a property interest in his employment. The court found that Amstutz’s employment was at-will and that he did not have a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment. Consequently, the court also dismissed Amstutz’s Monell claim against Harris County, as there was no underlying constitutional violation. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to amend, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Amstutz v. Harris County" on Justia Law

John Gilchrist and Byron Brockman sued their former employer, Schlumberger Technology Corp., for failing to pay them overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They worked as Measurements While Drilling Field Specialists (MWDs), providing essential data to Schlumberger's clients for drilling operations. Their duties included monitoring drilling data, ensuring data quality, and advising clients on drilling operations. Both earned over $200,000 annually but were not paid overtime.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held a bench trial and found that Schlumberger failed to prove that Gilchrist and Brockman were exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements under the Highly Compensated Employee (HCE) exemption. The court determined that their duties did not qualify as administrative or executive tasks that would exempt them from overtime pay. Schlumberger appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Gilchrist and Brockman qualified as highly compensated employees exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay requirement because they performed administrative duties, specifically quality control and advisory roles, which are directly related to the management or general business operations of Schlumberger's clients. The court noted that the MWDs' tasks were performed customarily and regularly, meeting the criteria for the HCE exemption. Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the claims for overtime pay. View "Gilchrist v. Schlumberger" on Justia Law