Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Department on his claims of employment discrimination in violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-1, retaliation in violation of GINA, and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the first claim because plaintiff presented no evidence that the Department requested, required, or purchased his genetic information, or discriminated against him on the basis of genetic information; the district court's conclusion that the timeline of events and the Department's submitted evidence showed that its actions were motivated by plaintiff's refusal to take a stress test; and the district court's findings - that the timing of plaintiff's placements on administrative duty showed that the Department’s motive was ensuring compliance with the Wellness Program and furthering its goals, not discriminating against plaintiff because of his national origin - were not erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, alleging claims of retaliation after her attempt to rescind her resignation was denied. Plaintiff offered her resignation, but before she finished her employment, she testified against the Executive Director, claiming sexual harassment. Then plaintiff attempted to rescind the resignation but the Executive Director rejected her rescission. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment because rejecting an employee’s rescission of resignation can sometimes constitute an adverse employment action and because plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial conflict of evidence on the question of whether her employer would have taken the action ‘but for’ her testimony. View "Porter v. Houma Terrebonne Hous. Auth." on Justia Law

Petitioner, claimant's former employer, appealed the Board's affirmance of the ALJ's order holding petitioner liable for medical expenses attributable to claimant’s asbestosis, under the Longshore Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901–950. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence for the ALJ to conclude that petitioner did not rebut the presumption of a valid LHWCA claim because it did not provide factual doubt. Therefore, the court affirmed as to this issue. The court applied a liberal causation standard when determining the coverage of initial and subsequent injuries, and affirmed the ALJ's order requiring petitioner to reimburse claimant for annual flu and pneumonia vaccines and the treatment of conditions including pneumonia and bronchitis. View "Ramsay Scarlett & Co. v. DOWCP" on Justia Law

Prosperity entered into contracts with a number of F&M bankers that included covenants not to compete, not to solicit, and not to disclose confidential information obtained while working at Prosperity. Prosperity sought to enforce the restrictive covenants under Texas law, but the district court denied Prosperity's application for injunctive relief. Texas generally allows covenants not to compete so long as they are limited both geographically and temporally, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. 15.50(a). Oklahoma generally does not, Okla. Stat. tit. 15, 217. The court concluded that, with respect to the noncompetition covenants, the choice-of-law provision is likely unenforceable,and the agreement is unlikely to fall within Oklahoma’s goodwill exception to its ban on noncompetition agreements. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Prosperity’s request for an injunction seeking to enforce these clauses because Prosperity cannot meet the important “substantial likelihood of success” factor. The court concluded that, with respect to the nonsolicitation covenant, the choice-of-law provision is likely enforceable. Therefore, the court remanded to the district court to permit it to decide in the first instance whether the agreement is enforceable under Texas law as is, or pursuant to a modification, and whether the other equitable factors warrant a preliminary injunction. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the nondisclosure agreement was likely enforceable and denied the request for a preliminary injunction on the ground that Prosperity failed to establish likelihood of success or irreparable injury. View "Cardoni v. Prosperity Bank" on Justia Law

Murphy Oil petitioned for review of the Board's decision, holding that Murphy Oil violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a), by requiring its employees to agree to resolve all employment-related claims through individual arbitration, and by taking steps to enforce the unlawful agreements in federal district court. The Board also held that both the Arbitration Agreement and Revised Arbitration Agreement at issue were unlawful because employees would reasonably construe them to prohibit filing Board charges. The court granted Murphy Oil’s petition, and held that the corporation did not commit unfair labor practices by requiring employees to sign its arbitration agreement or seeking to enforce that agreement in federal district court. The court denied Murphy Oil’s petition insofar as the Board’s order directed the corporation to clarify language in its arbitration agreement applicable to employees hired prior to March 2012 to ensure they understand they are not barred from filing charges with the Board. View "Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law