Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an Army veteran, began working as a probationary patrol officer for the Billerica Police Department in 2009. Later that year, the town manager terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff subsequently filed this action against the Town of Billerica and the chief of the police department under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, arguing that his status as veteran was a substantial or motivating factor in Defendants’ decision to terminate him. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff appealed, identifying three evidentiary errors that he argued warranted a retrial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the challenged evidentiary rulings did not warrant a new trial. View "Angiuoni v. Town of Billerica" on Justia Law

Plaintiff - a former police officer with the City of Quincy, Massachusetts - brought this action against the City, its chief of police, and a police captain, (collectively, Appellees), alleging, among other claims, that Appellees retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights by making statements to various news organizations regarding a dog ordinance issue. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient facts to survive a motion for summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim; (2) Plaintiff’s Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claim also failed at the summary judgment stage; and (3) Plaintiff’s defamation claim was properly subjected to summary judgment. View "McGunigle v. City of Quincy" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of the Boulevard Motel Corporation, filed separate complaints alleging that Boulevard filed them in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) and the Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (MWPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Boulevard, concluding that a “job duties exception” applied under both the MWPA and the MHRA. After Plaintiffs filed their appeals, the First Circuit issued a decision in Harrison v. Granite Bay Care, Inc., in which the Court held that no “broad-based job duties exception” applied under the MWPA. The First Circuit reversed after both parties conceded that no “job duties exception” exists under either the MWPA or, by implication, the MHRA, holding that no other grounds supported the order granting summary judgment. View "Pippin v. Boulevard Motel Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two high-profile medical researchers that held faculty appointments at Harvard Medical School and were intimately involved with a research laboratory at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, were investigated for alleged research misconduct. Responding to allegations that Plaintiffs used manipulated research data in articles reporting on studies supported by government funds, Harvard and Brigham triggered a unique federal statutory and regulatory scheme. Without awaiting the outcome of the administrative proceedings, Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court against the institutional defendants, alleging, inter alia, tortious interference with business relations, invasion of privacy, and unfair and deceptive business practices. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that the suit was premature because Plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies. The First Circuit affirmed as modified, holding (1) the district court correctly applied the doctrine of administrative exhaustion; but (2) on remand, the district court is directed to convert its order of dismissal to an order staying the case pending the timely resolution of administrative proceedings. View "Anversa v. Partners Healthcare Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a putative class of unionized “visiting” nurses, sued their employer - Baystate Visiting Nurse association & Hospice, Inc. and Baystate Health, Inc. (collectively, “Baystate”) - in state court for unpaid wages and overtime pay. Plaintiffs conceded that they were subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union and Baystate. Baystate removed this action to federal court, citing the doctrine of complete preemption, under which claims requiring interpretation of a CBA are reclassified as federal claims. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, concluding that complete preemption applied. The district court then granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) resolving one of the claims would require a court to interpret the CBA, and therefore, the claim was completely preempted, and the entire action was removable to federal court; and (2) the CBA required Plaintiffs to raise their wage claims through the grievance procedure, and therefore, the district court properly entered judgment on the pleadings. View "Rueli v. Baystate Health, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former graduate student intern at the John A. Volpe National Transportation System Center, sought access to the Volpe Centers propriety data through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to continue her thesis, but the CRADA was never executed. Plaintiff brought an employment discrimination suit against the Secretary of Transportation, alleging that, by failing to execute the CRADA, the Secretary discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, race, or national origin. The district court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff on the CRADA claim. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that summary judgment was proper. View "Tyree v. Lahood" on Justia Law

Robert Harris sought to recover in federal bankruptcy court a real estate broker’s commission that he alleged he was owed by Rosa Scarcelli and Oak Knoll Associates, LP (together, Oak Knoll). The bankruptcy court granted Oak Knoll’s motion for summary judgment, concluding, as a matter of law, that Harris was not owed a commission. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Oak Knoll, as (1) Harris’s proof of claim for his unpaid commission was unenforceable against Oak Knoll; and (2) Harris failed to identify a right that would entitle him to equitable relief. View "Harris v. Scarcelli" on Justia Law

After her employment was terminated, Employee filed sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation claims under federal and Puerto Rico law against her former employer (Employer) and its co-owners and administrator. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer on Employee’s federal claims and dismissed Employee’s remaining claims. The district court later awarded attorneys’ fees to the defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in holding Employee to the local rules’ ordinary page limits; (2) acted within its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to the prevailing defendants; and (3) did not err in rejecting Employee’s motions to set aside the summary judgment order and the fees award. View "Fontanillas-Lopez v. Morel Bauza Cartagena & Dapena" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether one of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s special-purpose public corporations, the Puerto Rico Ports Authority (PRPA), is an arm of the Commonwealth that enjoys sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Daniel Grajales and his family alleged that PRPA subjected Daniel to political discrimination and unlawfully terminated his employment for reasons related to political discrimination and retaliation. After many procedural “twists and turns,” the district court granted PRPA’s motion to dismiss, concluding that PRPA was an arm of the Commonwealth and thus immune from suit under Eleventh Amendment immunity principles. The First Circuit reversed, holding that PRPA was not entitled to claim the Commonwealth’s immunity as an arm of the Commonwealth. Remanded. View "Grajales v. P.R. Ports Auth." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Puerto Rico Police Department law enforcement officer, filed a complaint alleging that Defendants, his superior officers, violated the Establishment Clause by holding a group prayer while on duty and punishing Plaintiff for his non-conformance. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the complaint failed to allege plausibly a constitutional violation, and invoking qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion on both grounds. Appellants filed this interlocutory appeal to challenge the court’s denial of qualified immunity. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in rejecting Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. View "Marrero-Mendez v. Calixto-Rodriguez" on Justia Law