Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Eric Moore, an employee of Industrial Demolition LLC, injured his hip while working at the Brayton Point Power Station demolition site in December 2019. Despite his injury, Moore was able to continue working with reasonable accommodations. He returned to work with a doctor's note outlining his limitations and requested accommodations from Industrial Demolition. Although initially allowed to work with restrictions, Moore's supervisor became hostile towards him, leading to Moore's termination after an argument over his job-related limitations and requests for accommodation.A federal jury in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that Industrial Demolition failed to accommodate Moore's injury and retaliated against him for requesting or using a reasonable accommodation. The jury awarded Moore $10,035 in damages. Both Moore and Industrial Demolition were dissatisfied with the result and sought to reverse or amend the judgment or to grant a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's verdict, finding that the jury's determination that Moore was retaliated against for requesting or using a reasonable accommodation was supported by sufficient evidence. The court also upheld the district court's decision to allow the jury to consider the NLRB settlement payment in calculating damages, rejecting Moore's argument that the settlement should be excluded as collateral source income. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Moore's motion for a new trial on the issue of punitive damages, concluding that the evidence did not support a finding of outrageous or egregious conduct by Industrial Demolition warranting punitive damages. View "Moore v. Industrial Demolition LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Leika Joanna García-Gesualdo, who filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Honeywell Aerospace of Puerto Rico, Inc., and Honeywell International, Inc. García-Gesualdo alleged that Honeywell discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC investigated her claims but decided not to proceed further, issuing a right-to-sue letter on March 29, 2022. García-Gesualdo filed her lawsuit on July 7, 2022, 100 days after the EEOC's decision.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed García-Gesualdo's claims as time-barred, agreeing with Honeywell that the complaint was filed more than ninety days after the EEOC issued the right-to-sue letter. The court noted that García-Gesualdo's attorney received emails from the EEOC on March 29 and April 6, indicating that a new document was available on the EEOC's portal. The district court concluded that the ninety-day period began on either March 29 or April 6, making the July 7 filing untimely.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that neither the March 29 email nor the April 6 email provided sufficient notice of García-Gesualdo's right to sue. The court emphasized that the emails did not unambiguously indicate that the EEOC had terminated its processes or that the ninety-day period to file a lawsuit had begun. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the facts establishing untimeliness were not clear on the face of the pleadings, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Garcia-Gesualdo v. Honeywell Aerospace of Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law

Scott Cannon, individually and as the personal representative of the estate of Blaise Cannon, filed a wrongful death and punitive damages claim against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBS). Cannon alleged that BCBS's denial of coverage for a specific inhaler led to asthma-related complications that contributed to Blaise's death. Blaise was a beneficiary of his partner's BCBS health insurance policy, which was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to BCBS on the grounds of ERISA preemption. The court found that Cannon's wrongful death claim was preempted by ERISA because it related to an employee benefit plan and arose from the denial of benefits under that plan. The court also held that the claim conflicted with the remedial scheme established by ERISA, which provides specific civil enforcement mechanisms.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Cannon's claim was statutorily preempted under ERISA because it had a connection with the ERISA-regulated health insurance plan. The court also found that the claim was preempted under ERISA's civil enforcement provisions, as it sought remedies for the denial of benefits under the plan. The court rejected Cannon's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association altered the preemption analysis, reaffirming that ERISA preempts state laws that relate to employee benefit plans. The court concluded that Cannon's wrongful death claim was derivative of Blaise's potential claim for benefits, which would have been preempted by ERISA. View "Cannon v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc." on Justia Law

Dr. Susan O'Horo, an interventional radiologist and Director of Quality and Safety at Boston Medical Center Corporation (BMC), alleged that she faced discriminatory and retaliatory actions at her workplace. She claimed that her efforts to report safety concerns, particularly regarding a colleague, Dr. Mikhail Higgins, were met with hostility and that she was ultimately forced to resign due to the intolerable work environment.In the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Dr. O'Horo filed claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, and the Massachusetts Health Care Whistleblower Act (MHCWA). The defendants, including BMC, Boston University Medical Center Radiologists, Inc. (BUMCR), and Dr. Jorge Soto, moved for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, and the district court adopted this recommendation, dismissing all of Dr. O'Horo's claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Dr. O'Horo failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination or retaliation. The court found that the alleged adverse actions, such as the reassignment of her duties and the scheduling of reviews, did not constitute materially adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court concluded that the hostile work environment claim was insufficient as the workplace was not objectively hostile or abusive. The aiding and abetting claim under Chapter 151B was dismissed as it was derivative of the failed discrimination claims. Lastly, the court held that Dr. O'Horo did not establish a prima facie case under the MHCWA, as she failed to show that the actions taken against her were retaliatory. View "O'Horo v. Boston Medical Center Corporation" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Carmen Quintana-Dieppa, a 62-year-old Puerto Rican woman, worked for the Department of the Army since 1988 and served as a Child Youth and School Services Coordinator at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, since 2009. In 2014, she filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging national origin discrimination. While her complaint was pending, the Army conducted two investigations into her management style, finding that she fostered a toxic work environment. Consequently, she was reassigned to a nonsupervisory role in 2017. Quintana claimed this reassignment was discriminatory and retaliatory.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment in favor of the Army, finding no genuine issues of material fact. The court determined that Quintana failed to properly contest the Army's Statement of Facts according to Local Rule 56, and thus, the Army's facts were deemed admitted. The court concluded that Quintana did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation and, even if she had, she failed to show that the Army's reasons for her reassignment were pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that Quintana did not meet her burden of showing that the Army's stated reasons for her reassignment were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The court noted that the Army's investigations provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the reassignment, and Quintana's arguments, including claims of hearsay and fabrication, were unsupported by the record. The court also found that the temporal proximity between her EEOC complaint and reassignment was insufficient to establish a causal link for retaliation. View "Quintana-Dieppa v. Department of the Army" on Justia Law

Rosemary Morgan-Lee, a former employee of Therapy Resources Management, LLC (TRM), alleged that she was discharged in violation of the whistleblower protections under the False Claims Act (FCA) and the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act (RIWPA). Morgan-Lee claimed that her termination was due to her efforts to report fraudulent activities by TRM. The district court found that while she had engaged in some protected activity and TRM had general corporate knowledge of this, she failed to prove that her protected conduct was the but-for cause of her termination.The case was initially tried before a jury in 2017, resulting in a mistrial. The district court then conducted a four-day bench trial, during which it heard testimony from ten witnesses. The court ultimately ruled against Morgan-Lee, finding that her termination was due to unapproved absences and her refusal to provide specifics about the alleged fraudulent activities, rather than any retaliatory animus from TRM.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Morgan-Lee argued that the district court committed legal errors and that its factual findings were clearly erroneous. However, the appellate court found that many of her arguments were waived, unpreserved, or without merit. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court properly applied the law and that its findings, including the lack of but-for causation, were well-supported by the record. The appellate court also rejected Morgan-Lee's arguments regarding the application of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and the causation standard, affirming the district court's use of the but-for causation standard as consistent with precedent. View "United States ex rel. Morgan-Lee v. Therapy Resources Management, LLC" on Justia Law

A high school student, Adrianna Wadsworth, filed a lawsuit against her principal, Andrew Cavanaugh, a school social worker, Chuck Nguyen, and the school district, MSAD 40/RSU 40, alleging constitutional violations and a Title IX claim. Wadsworth claimed that Cavanaugh sexually harassed her, Nguyen failed to protect her, and the school district was indifferent to the harassment.The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed some of Wadsworth's claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on others. The court dismissed the supervisor-liability claim against Nguyen, finding no control over Cavanaugh. It also granted summary judgment to Cavanaugh on the substantive due process claim, concluding that non-physical harassment did not violate Wadsworth's right to bodily integrity. The court found that Wadsworth's equal protection claim against Cavanaugh was valid but granted him qualified immunity. Nguyen was granted summary judgment on the state-created-danger claim, as his conduct did not shock the conscience. The court also granted summary judgment to MSAD on the § 1983 municipal liability claim, finding no deliberate indifference, and on the Title IX claim, concluding that the assistant principals did not have actual knowledge of the harassment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court's decision on the substantive due process claim against Cavanaugh but reversed the summary judgment on the equal protection claim, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that Cavanaugh's conduct was severe and pervasive enough to constitute sexual harassment. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the supervisor-liability claim against Nguyen and the summary judgment on the state-created-danger claim. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the Title IX claim against MSAD, concluding that a reasonable jury could find that the assistant principals had actual knowledge of the harassment. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Wadsworth v. MSAD 40/RSU 40" on Justia Law

A registered nurse, Alexandra Melino, sued her former employer, Boston Medical Center (BMC), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Massachusetts General Laws by denying her request for a religious exemption from BMC's COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Melino's primary duties involved direct patient care in critical units. During the pandemic, BMC converted several units to COVID-19 units and faced significant staffing challenges due to the virus. BMC implemented a vaccination policy based on CDC recommendations to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission among staff and patients.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to BMC, holding that Melino's requested exemption would impose undue hardship on the hospital. The court found that Melino could not work remotely, could not work in-person unvaccinated without risking patient safety, and that any feasible accommodation would impose substantial costs on BMC. Melino's motion to strike portions of an affidavit submitted by BMC was also denied due to her failure to comply with local procedural rules.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that BMC had demonstrated undue hardship by showing that allowing Melino to work unvaccinated would increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. The court noted that Melino did not provide any medical evidence to contradict BMC's reliance on CDC recommendations. Additionally, Melino's argument that BMC should have considered alternative accommodations was waived as it was not raised in the lower court. The court upheld the district court's rulings, affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of BMC. View "Melino v. Boston Medical Center" on Justia Law

George Rodrique, II, a photographer for WCVB-TV, sued his employer, Hearst Stations, Inc. ("Hearst"), after it denied his request for a religious exemption from the company's COVID-19 vaccination requirement and subsequently terminated him for refusing to receive the vaccine. Rodrique claimed that Hearst's actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in employment.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Hearst's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Rodrique's objections to the vaccine were not religious in nature. The court did not address whether accommodating Rodrique's request would have imposed an undue hardship on Hearst.Rodrique appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing that his objections were indeed religious and that granting the exemption would not have caused undue hardship. He contended that Hearst provided insufficient evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine reduces virus transmission.The First Circuit assumed, without deciding, that Rodrique's objections were religious. However, it affirmed the district court's summary judgment on different grounds, holding that Hearst reasonably relied on objective medical evidence, including public health guidance, to conclude that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of transmitting COVID-19. The court found that Hearst's reliance on such evidence was reasonable and that accommodating Rodrique's request would have imposed an undue hardship on the company. Thus, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to Hearst. View "Rodrique v. Hearst Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

Jesse Sutherland was employed as an oil service technician at Peterson's Oil Service, Inc. ("Peterson's"). Two months into his job, he injured his right knee, leading to a torn meniscus and damaged patella. Sutherland requested reduced work hours due to his injury and eventually took a 12-week leave for knee surgery. Upon attempting to return to work, he was informed of his termination, effective the date he was supposed to return, citing a lack of work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sutherland sued Peterson's for disability discrimination and related claims.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of Peterson's, leading Sutherland to appeal. The district court concluded that Sutherland did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, particularly questioning whether his knee injury qualified as a disability under the ADA.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its analysis. The appellate court concluded that Sutherland provided sufficient evidence to show that his knee injury was a disability under the ADA, as it substantially limited his major life activities. The court also found that Sutherland's requests for reduced work hours were reasonable and that Peterson's failed to engage in the interactive process required by law. The appellate court vacated the district court's summary judgment on Sutherland's disability-related claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision regarding Sutherland's wrongful termination claim based on alleged violation of Massachusetts public policy, as Sutherland did not provide sufficient evidence of a well-defined public policy supporting his views on biofuel. View "Sutherland v. Peterson's Oil Service, Inc." on Justia Law