Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

In the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Lab required employees to be vaccinated against the disease. Sally Tarquinio, who suffers from “Lyme-induced immune dysregulation,” requested a medical exemption, fearing adverse effects from the vaccine. The lab found her condition unclear and requested to speak with her doctors, but Tarquinio refused. Consequently, the lab denied her exemption request and terminated her employment for non-compliance. Tarquinio sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the lab.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed the case and found that Tarquinio had not provided sufficient evidence to support her need for an exemption. The court noted that the lab had made good faith efforts to understand her condition and accommodate her, but Tarquinio’s refusal to allow communication with her doctors prevented the lab from obtaining necessary information. The court concluded that without this information, the lab could not be held liable for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Tarquinio’s failure to engage in the interactive process by not providing adequate medical documentation or allowing the lab to speak with her doctors meant that the lab was not on proper notice of her need for accommodation. The court emphasized that the interactive process is essential for determining reasonable accommodations and that an employer cannot be held liable if the employee obstructs this process. Thus, the lab’s actions were deemed appropriate, and the summary judgment in favor of the lab was affirmed. View "Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab" on Justia Law

Martin Misjuns, a Fire Captain and paramedic with the Lynchburg Fire Department, was terminated after posting offensive social media content targeting transgender individuals. Misjuns alleged that his termination was due to his political and religious views, which he expressed on his Facebook pages. He claimed that the City of Lynchburg and its officials conspired to violate his constitutional rights, leading to his firing.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed all of Misjuns' claims. The court found that the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities were duplicative and dismissed them. The court also dismissed Misjuns' breach of contract, equal protection, conspiracy, and wrongful termination claims. The court partially dismissed his First Amendment claims but later dismissed them entirely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Misjuns' claims. The court held that Misjuns failed to establish Monell liability against the City of Lynchburg, as he did not adequately plead that a policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court also found that the City's Employment Policies & Procedures handbook did not constitute a binding contract, thus dismissing the breach of contract claim. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the conspiracy and wrongful termination claims against the individual defendants, as those claims were not asserted against the City and had been dismissed by agreement.The Fourth Circuit concluded that Misjuns did not sufficiently plead facts to state a claim for relief on any of his six claims, affirming the district court's decision. View "Misjuns v. City of Lynchburg" on Justia Law

Garten Trucking LC, a company specializing in the transportation of paper products, faced a union organizing campaign by the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers (AWPPW) in mid-2021. After losing a union representation election, AWPPW filed multiple unfair labor practice charges against Garten Trucking, alleging various violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Garten Trucking guilty of several violations, including unlawful interrogation and threats, and ordered a new election. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) affirmed the ALJ's findings and mandated bargaining with AWPPW.While the initial case was pending, AWPPW continued its organizing efforts, distributing a flyer claiming that Garten Trucking was required to bargain with the union and that the union's presence led to employee raises. In response, Garten Trucking's owner, Robert Garten, posted a message on the company's internal board, refuting the union's claims and suggesting that employees would have already received raises if not for the union's actions. The union filed another unfair labor practice charge, and the ALJ ruled that Garten's message violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by implying that union activities negatively impacted wage increases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether Garten's message constituted a coercive threat. The court upheld the NLRB's decision, finding substantial evidence that Garten's statement linking wage increases to union activities was coercive and violated the NLRA. The court emphasized that while employers are entitled to express their opinions on union activities, they cannot make statements that imply threats or promises of benefits based on union support. The court denied Garten Trucking's petition and granted the NLRB's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Garten Trucking LC v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Lisa Barnhill, a white woman, sued the U.S. Attorney General, alleging racial and gender discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Barnhill claimed she faced discrimination from her African American supervisor and others while employed by the DEA. Some of her claims were dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and others were resolved on summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Barnhill's race and gender discrimination claims, finding she failed to allege facts showing discriminatory animus. The court also dismissed her retaliation claims related to promotion denials and a five-day suspension, concluding she did not plausibly allege a connection between her EEO proceeding and these adverse actions. However, the court allowed her retaliation claims related to a management review and temporary duty reassignment, as well as her hostile work environment claim, to proceed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of Barnhill's discrimination claims, agreeing she did not plausibly allege discriminatory animus. The court also affirmed the dismissal of her retaliation claims related to promotion denials and the suspension, finding no causal connection to her EEO proceeding. On summary judgment, the court found that the management review was initiated by a supervisor without discriminatory animus and that the temporary duty reassignment was justified by legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons. The court also concluded that Barnhill's hostile work environment claim failed because the adverse actions she experienced were responses to her own behavior, not severe or pervasive harassment.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Barnhill failed to establish the necessary elements for her claims. View "Barnhill v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Two former employees sued Zen Nails Studio LLC and its owners for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a similar Maryland state law. After a five-day bench trial, the plaintiffs won and were awarded approximately 60% of their requested damages. The plaintiffs then sought $343,189.85 in attorney’s fees, but the district court awarded them $167,115.49, which was less than half of what they requested. The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision regarding the hourly rates used to calculate the attorney’s fees.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt, initially reviewed the case. The district court set the hourly rates for the plaintiffs’ attorneys, paralegals, and paraprofessionals based on the local rules' guidelines, which it treated as presumptively reasonable. The court then calculated the hours reasonably worked and reduced the total by 35% due to the plaintiffs achieving a moderately successful outcome. The plaintiffs challenged the district court’s reliance on the local rules' guidelines for setting the hourly rates.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the district court erred by treating the hourly rates in the local rules as presumptively correct and requiring special justification for higher rates. The Fourth Circuit emphasized that while fee matrices can be a useful starting point, they should not be treated as setting a baseline that requires special justification to deviate from. The appellate court vacated the fee award and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to consider all relevant evidence to determine the prevailing market rates without giving undue weight to the local rules' guidelines. View "De Paredes v. Zen Nails Studio LLC" on Justia Law

John Sigley applied for a Material Handler position with ND Fairmont LLC (NDF) and was offered the job contingent on passing a physical exam. During the physical, conducted by Industrial Therapy Solutions (ITS), Sigley denied having any back issues or seeing a chiropractor, despite having undergone three back surgeries and having a metal rod in his back. He passed the physical and began working on September 13, 2021. On October 28, 2021, Sigley called out of work due to back spasms and later disclosed his back condition to NDF's HR Manager, Joyce Hardway, and Environmental Health & Safety Manager, Justin Darrah. NDF confirmed Sigley's omission of his back condition during the physical and terminated him for dishonesty on November 2, 2021.Sigley filed a lawsuit against NDF, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of NDF, finding that Sigley was terminated for dishonesty, not because of his disability. The court also dismissed Sigley's claims of breach of confidentiality and failure to accommodate, as they were not properly pled in his complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Sigley failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, as he could not demonstrate that his termination raised a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination. The court found that NDF had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Sigley—his dishonesty during the physical exam. The court also noted that Sigley's claims of breach of confidentiality and failure to accommodate were untimely and meritless, as he did not properly plead them and admitted he did not require an accommodation. View "Sigley v. ND Fairmont LLC" on Justia Law

Jeremy Smith, a customer care technician for Cox Enterprises, Inc., received long-term disability benefits for seven years due to severe back pain and multiple surgeries. In 2019, Aetna, the plan administrator, terminated his benefits, concluding he could work under certain conditions. Smith appealed, providing additional medical evidence, including a consultative examination from Dr. Harris, which supported his disability claim. Aetna upheld the termination, leading Smith to file a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Cox Enterprises, Inc. Welfare Benefits Plan. The court found that Aetna's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that it was reasonable for Aetna to discount the opinions of Smith's primary care physician and the Social Security Administration's disability determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Aetna abused its discretion by failing to adequately discuss and consider conflicting evidence, particularly Dr. Harris's consultative examination and the Social Security Administration's disability determination. The court found that Aetna did not engage in a deliberate and principled reasoning process, as required by ERISA regulations. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to remand the matter to Aetna for reconsideration of Smith's claim. View "Smith v. Cox Enterprises, Inc. Welfare Benefits Plan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Sotera, alleging that the company violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Sotera, holding that the district court correctly rejected plaintiff's legal contention that Sotera interfered with plaintiff's FMLA rights by not restoring him to his pre-leave position; no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Sotera failed to place plaintiff in "an equivalent position" or that the differences between the two jobs at issue were more than merely de minimis; and plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to his termination-related claims. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Sotera was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that Sotera interfered with his FMLA rights by reinstating him to a sham position and then firing him at the first opportunity. Finally, plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact such that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the adverse employment action was taken for an impermissible reason, such as retaliation. View "Waag v. Sotera Defense Solutions" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a class of retirees and their union, filed suit against Constellium after the company unilaterally altered its retiree health benefits program. The district court granted summary judgment to Constellium. The court interpreted Article 15 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) using ordinary contract principles and concluded that the plain language of the CBA and summary plan description (SPD) clearly indicated that the retiree health benefits did not vest. The court rejected plaintiffs' assertion that the Cap Letters and other provisions of the CBA evince an intent to vest the retiree health benefits. The court also rejected plaintiffs' remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Barton v. Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenwood, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former Battalion Chief, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County and others, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment free speech rights, and that the Department's social media policy was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the First Amendment claim, and dismissed as moot the facial challenge to the social media policy. The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants as to the First Amendment claim. In this case, at least some of plaintiff's Facebook activity prompting his termination implicated matters of public concern, and the Department's interest in workplace efficiency and preventing disruption outweighed the public interest commentary contained in plaintiff's Facebook activity. Because the court found that the district court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment against plaintiff, the court declined to review the as-applied challenge. The court concluded that the third-party facial challenge was properly dismissed as moot where defendants have adopted a new social media policy and revised code of conduct, as well as declared that the Department has no intent to reenact the offending policies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Buker v. Howard County" on Justia Law