Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

After plaintiff filed an administrative complaint claiming disability discrimination by the Postal Service, the Postal Service and EEOC determined that her case was subsumed within a pending administrative class action. Plaintiff then filed suit against the Postmaster General. On remand, the magistrate judge subsequently determined that plaintiff's claim was properly subsumed within the class action and dismissed plaintiff's case for failure to exhaust. The court concluded that the district court properly determined that plaintiff's claims were subsumed within the McConnell v. Potter class action; the EEOC's notice of plaintiff's right to sue did not establish that she exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to the merits of her disability discrimination claims; the court rejected plaintiff's contention that the magistrate judge erred in dismissing her complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); and, even if the magistrate judge had dismissed plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal would have been without prejudice and the court's review would remain unchanged. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ruiz v. Brennan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a math professor at Southern University's New Orleans campus, filed suit against the University, alleging that plaintiff's supervisor engaged in a campaign of harassment that has continued through the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiff sued the University under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the supervisor individually under section 1983. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment for defendants. Principally at issue on appeal was whether the continuing violation doctrine required consideration of a lengthier period of time in evaluating the merit of plaintiff's claims. Like the Tenth Circuit, the court expressly recognized that the court's post-National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan test for the continuing violation doctrine has long implicitly acknowledged: Morgan overruled the court's prior cases to the extent they held that the continuing violation doctrine does not apply when an employee was or should have been aware earlier of a duty to assert her rights. Therefore, the magistrate judge erred by using this factor to prevent plaintiff from showing a continuing violation that would enable her to support her harassment claim with conduct occurring more than 300 days before she filed her EEOC charge. The court further concluded that Morgan's disclaiming of an "on notice" inquiry should also apply to section 1983 hostile work environment claims; concluded that plaintiff has alleged a continuing course of conduct dating back to her return from leave in 2011; remanded for the magistrate judge to evaluate the full scope of the allegedly harassing conduct; and affirmed the dismissal of the Title VII retaliation claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Heath v. Southern University System" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was terminated by his employers, he filed suit against them, alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for defendants on the ADA claim because plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the reasons defendants gave for terminating him - a reduction in force - were pretextual. Because the pretext arguments plaintiff raised with respect to the ADA apply equally to the FMLA, the court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the FMLA claim. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Caldwell v. KHOU-TV" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging that the antiretaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., was violated when she was terminated after raising concerns about whether a coworker's pay complied with the FLSA. The court concluded that there was a factual dispute about whether plaintiff was stepping outside her ordinary role as Risk Manager and giving fair notice to Daybreak that she was asserting rights adverse to it; plaintiff had established the causal link required to establish a prima facie case; and there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that Daybreak's reasons for firing plaintiff was a pretext for retaliation. The court also concluded that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's request for emotional damages. Finally, the court agreed with the district court that the state statute does not provide protection to employees reporting FLSA violations. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Starnes v. Wallace" on Justia Law

The Companies petitioned for review of the Board's determination that they constitute a single employer and that the single-employer doctrine can be used to hold them liable under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158. The court held that the Board correctly determined that Alcoa and TRACO constitute a single employer because there was substantial evidence showing common control over labor relations as well as interrelation of operations and common ownership. The court summarily enforced the Board's order with respect to liability under Section 8(a)(1) on the issues related to the exclusion of Alcoa employees from the TRACO facility and surveillance of handbilling, because the Companies do not dispute that substantial evidence supports the Board's findings. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Alcoa v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Lufkin, his former employer, alleging, inter alia, that the employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that he was discharged in retaliation for complaining that his direct supervisor racially harassed him. The district court dismissed and refused to grant plaintiff an extension of time to file additional objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, which the district court adopted. The court concluded that plaintiff is entitled to relief because he has demonstrated that his supervisors, motivated by retaliatory animus, took acts intended to cause an adverse employment action, and those acts were a but-for cause of his termination. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The court dismissed Lufkin's cross-appeal. View "Fisher v. Lufkin Industries" on Justia Law

Remington, a hotel management company, seeks review of the Board's order finding that it violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (3). The court concluded that the Board's finding that the 2012 Hospitality Staffing Services contract violated the NRLA is supported by substantial evidence. The court rejected Remington's argument that the district court, without finding that an employee was not engaged in a protected activity when she was terminated, cannot hold that the employee's discharge violated section 8(a)(1). The court agreed with the Board's findings that Remington's decision to discharge the employee violated section 8(a)(1). Accordingly, the court denied Remington's petition for partial review and enforced the order. View "Remington Lodging v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Delek petitions for review of OSHA citations for violations of its process safety management rules, which govern an employer’s responsibility to inspect, and to develop inspection and recording regimes for, machinery that handles large volumes of hazardous chemicals. Item 4 alleges a failure to resolve open findings and recommendations identified during process hazard analyses that occurred in 1994, 1998, 1999, 2004, and 2005—prior to Delek purchasing and taking possession of the refinery. Item 8 alleges an inadequate monitoring and inspection regime for certain equipment involved in process safety management. Item 12 alleges that Delek failed to determine and document a response to the findings of a 2005 compliance audit in a timely manner. Item 12 was also conducted before Delek took possession of the refinery. The court concluded that citations for Items 4 and 12 are barred by the six-month statute of limitations in 29 U.S.C. 658(c). Accordingly, the court vacated those items. The court also concluded that the regulations relevant to the citation for Item 8 are ambiguous and the Secretary's interpretation is reasonable. The court affirmed the citation for Item 8. View "Delek Refining, Ltd. v. OSHC" on Justia Law

UNF seeks review of the Board's decision and order finding that UNF engaged in unfair labor practices. The court agreed with the ALJ that UNF committed unfair labor practices by interrogating employees about their union activities, threatening employees with futility regarding their rights to organize and bargain collectively, and threatening employees with reduction of wages. The court rejected UNF's remaining objections and denied the petition for review. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "UNF West, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against JTCH alleging retaliation claims based on JTCH's demand of back rent after the filing of plaintiff's initial suit seeking unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. The jury found for plaintiff on both his overtime wage claim and his retaliation claim, awarding him $1,426.50 on the former and $3,775.50 on the latter. In post-trial rulings, the district court awarded plaintiff liquidated damages of $1,426.50 and awarded his counsel $76,732.88 in attorney’s fees, which was a 25% reduction from the amount requested. Both parties appealed. The court joined other circuits in deciding that the FLSA’s broad authorization of “legal and equitable relief” encompasses compensation for emotional injuries suffered by an employee on account of employer retaliation. In this case, a question asking whether plaintiff had proven any damages for emotional distress should have been submitted to the jury. The court also concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the wife's retaliation claim because the FLSA only prohibits discharging or discriminating against an “employee.” Because the court held that damages for emotional distress are available in an FLSA retaliation suit, and the district court’s ruling to the contrary was made prior to instructing the jury rather than after the verdict was rendered, the court remanded for a determination of whether defendant has proven such harm. View "Pineda v. JTCH Apartments, LLC" on Justia Law