Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

A Black woman who had worked for a community college for nearly two decades applied for a promotion to Assistant Dean of Workforce Solutions after serving as Director of Special Populations. The position required significant experience in workforce development, including knowledge of specific funding and grant-writing. The applicant pool included her and a Hispanic male colleague who had overseen larger programs and had more direct experience with the job’s requirements. A search committee interviewed candidates, with the final hiring decision made by the Vice President of Enrollment and Outreach Initiatives.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially dismissed her claims of race and gender discrimination under Title VII. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded in part, allowing her to pursue a disparate treatment claim focused on the college’s failure to promote her and its issuance of a corrective action letter for a payroll error. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the college, finding that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination, and that the employer’s stated reason—selecting the more qualified candidate—was not shown to be pretextual.Reviewing the case de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The court assumed that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination but held that she did not meet her burden to show the employer’s justification was pretext. The court found that the selected candidate’s qualifications aligned more closely with the position, and that neither evidence of preselection, circumstantial evidence of discriminatory comments, nor disparate discipline sufficed to demonstrate intentional discrimination or pretext. The court thus affirmed the judgment in favor of the college. View "Hood-Wilson v. Board of Trustees, Community College of Baltimore" on Justia Law

After divorcing in 2010, a former employee and his ex-spouse entered into a court-approved domestic relations order in North Carolina that divided his employer-sponsored retirement plan benefits. The order stipulated that the ex-spouse would be treated as a surviving spouse, entitling her to survivor benefits under the plan, and stated that her portion of the benefit "may be reduced as necessary" to cover the cost of the survivor annuity. Years later, when the employee retired and began receiving benefits, he argued that the plan administrator improperly reduced his monthly payment by factoring the cost of the survivor annuity into his share, rather than allocating the cost solely to his ex-spouse’s portion. He also claimed that the plan administrator failed to timely provide all requested plan documents, warranting statutory penalties.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted summary judgment for the employer and plan administrator. The court found that the plan administrator correctly interpreted the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to permit, but not require, allocating the cost of the survivor annuity to the ex-spouse’s share, and that the benefit calculation was consistent with the plan terms and not an abuse of discretion. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by any delay in receiving plan documents and denied statutory penalties.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Fourth Circuit concluded that de novo review was appropriate for interpreting the QDRO, while the plan administrator’s benefit calculations were reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court held that the QDRO’s language was unambiguous and permissive, not mandatory, regarding who should bear the cost of the survivor annuity. The court also upheld the denial of statutory penalties, finding no prejudice or bad faith. The district court’s summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Gasper v. EIDP, Inc." on Justia Law

An employee of a company specializing in training security officers raised concerns to management about unsafe working conditions, including the handling of weapons and a hazardous firing range where bullet ricochets had resulted in injuries. The employee, along with other instructors, formally complained to supervisors about these dangers, especially during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when he also questioned restrictions on personal protective equipment. After voicing these safety concerns, the employee was suspended and later terminated, allegedly for insubordination.The employee filed a charge with the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asserting that his termination was unlawful retaliation for engaging in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). After investigation, an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing and determined that the employee was not a managerial employee and was therefore protected by the NLRA. The ALJ found that the primary reason for the suspension and termination was the employee’s repeated advocacy regarding workplace safety, not insubordination. The ALJ concluded that the employer had committed unfair labor practices. The employer appealed, and the NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision with minor modifications.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the NLRB’s order. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court held that the Board’s conclusion—that the employee was not a managerial employee—was supported by the record. The court found that the employee lacked authority to formulate or implement management policy and did not possess the discretion characteristic of managerial status. Therefore, the employee was entitled to the NLRA’s protections. The court granted the NLRB’s application for enforcement of its order and denied the employer’s cross-petition for review. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Constellis, LLC" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an employer instituted a company-wide vaccine mandate that applied to all employees, including those working remotely. Two remote employees requested religious exemptions from the vaccine requirement. One objected on the basis of her Christian beliefs regarding the use of fetal cell lines in vaccine development, while the other cited her conscience and faith, referencing Catholic teachings. Both exemption requests were denied, and the employees were subsequently terminated.After their terminations, the two employees initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Their claims included religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and two disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): one for unlawful medical inquiry and one for being “regarded as” disabled due to their unvaccinated status. The district court dismissed all claims, concluding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pleaded that their objections were based on religious beliefs and finding that neither ADA theory was viable because vaccination status is not equivalent to a disability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ complaints plausibly alleged that their opposition to the vaccine mandate was an essential part of their religious faith and that their refusal to be vaccinated was connected to those beliefs. Therefore, the court found that the district court erred in dismissing the Title VII religious discrimination claims at the pleading stage. However, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of both ADA claims, holding that an inquiry into vaccination status is not a disability-related inquiry and that being unvaccinated does not constitute a physical or mental impairment under the ADA. The case was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the Title VII claims. View "Finn v. Humane Society of the United States" on Justia Law

The plaintiff worked as an Admissions Coordinator at a Maryland hospital’s Center for Eating Disorders, where her duties required frequent in-person contact with medically vulnerable patients and other staff. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital implemented a vaccine mandate for all employees, following state health directives and public health guidance. The hospital allowed employees to request religious or medical exemptions, evaluating each on a case-by-case basis. The plaintiff requested a religious exemption, which was denied after the hospital determined her role could not be performed remotely and that accommodating her would pose risks to patient safety. She was terminated after refusing vaccination.After her termination, the plaintiff filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and then sued the hospital in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging a violation of Title VII for failure to accommodate her religious beliefs. The district court granted summary judgment to the hospital, finding that exempting the plaintiff from the vaccine requirement would have created an undue hardship by jeopardizing patient safety and increasing the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks in a sensitive healthcare environment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that, under the standard clarified by the Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy, the hospital met its burden to show that granting the requested religious accommodation would have resulted in substantial increased costs and significant health and safety risks, both to patients and staff. The court also found that the hospital properly considered alternative accommodations and the aggregate impact of granting similar exemptions. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the hospital. View "Hall v. Sheppard Pratt Health System" on Justia Law

A professor was hired by a university in 2014 as a tenure-track Assistant Professor with a starting salary at the lowest end of the pay scale for her department. Over the next several years, she was denied promotions, demoted to at-will status, and claims she was paid less than male colleagues. She alleges that these actions were motivated by sex discrimination and retaliation for her complaints, including derogatory statements allegedly made by a department chair about her gender and sexual orientation. She filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and, after leaving the university, brought suit alleging violations of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to the university and individual defendants on all claims. The court found that her Title VII claims regarding the 2019 and 2020 promotion denials were procedurally barred—one as untimely and the other for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court also found that the evidence did not support her claims of sex discrimination, wage discrimination, or retaliation, concluding that the university’s stated reasons for its actions were legitimate and not pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It affirmed the district court’s ruling that the Title VII claims related to the 2019 and 2020 promotion denials were procedurally barred. However, it reversed the grant of summary judgment on the remaining claims, holding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding sex discrimination in the 2016 promotion denial, retaliation, and wage discrimination. The court also held that the procedural bars of Title VII did not apply to the plaintiff’s claims under Title IX, Section 1983, or Maryland state law for the 2019 and 2020 promotion denials. The case was remanded for further proceedings on those claims. View "Hollis v. Morgan State University" on Justia Law

An attorney formerly employed by the Federal Public Defender’s Office (FDO) for the Western District of North Carolina alleged that her supervisor sexually harassed her. After she reported the harassment, the FDO’s Unit Executive took steps to separate her from the supervisor, including changing reporting lines, authorizing telework, and offering her a promotion. The attorney also initiated proceedings under the judiciary’s Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan, which provided for both investigation and mediation. During this process, she alleged additional retaliation and discrimination by the Unit Executive. She ultimately left her position and withdrew from the EDR process before a formal hearing could occur.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina conducted a six-day bench trial and issued a lengthy decision. The court found that, while there were procedural missteps and some insensitive comments by supervisors, the FDO’s response to the harassment was not deliberately indifferent, retaliatory, or discriminatory. The court also found that the attorney’s due-process rights were not violated, as she was not coerced to abandon the EDR process based on a reasonable belief that the Unit Executive would be the final decisionmaker. The court granted summary judgment to two other officials, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent or deliberate indifference, and excluded certain “Me Too” evidence as inadmissible.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with a panel of judges from outside the circuit due to recusals, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the attorney failed to prove a due-process violation or equal-protection claim. The court found that the EDR process, while imperfect, was not fundamentally unfair or coercive, and that the FDO’s response to the harassment was not clearly unreasonable. The court also held that any error in excluding the “Me Too” evidence was harmless, denied the attorney’s motions to unseal certain materials and for summary reversal, and declined to consider a new constitutional challenge to Title VII’s exclusion of judiciary employees. View "Strickland v. Moritz" on Justia Law

Mary Herkert, an employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA) with multiple physical disabilities, requested a scheduled telework arrangement as an accommodation for her medical needs. After her request was denied and she indicated her intent to pursue equal employment opportunity remedies, Herkert was reassigned from her supervisory Branch Chief position to a non-supervisory management analyst role. Although the new position allowed her to telework as requested, Herkert contended that the reassignment was a demotion, resulting in a loss of supervisory authority, prestige, and advancement opportunities, despite no change in pay or benefits.After exhausting administrative remedies, Herkert filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the SSA Commissioner, holding that Herkert’s reassignment did not constitute a sufficiently “significant” adverse employment action because her pay and benefits remained unchanged. The court also found the reassignment to be voluntary, relying on Herkert’s acceptance of the new position and her expression of gratitude. On this basis, the court concluded that Herkert could not prevail on her discrimination, retaliation, or reasonable accommodation claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court’s judgment. The Fourth Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a plaintiff challenging a job transfer for discrimination need not show a “significant” change in working conditions, but only “some disadvantageous change.” The appellate court also found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Herkert’s reassignment was truly voluntary. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these clarified legal standards. View "Herkert v. Bisignano" on Justia Law

Sandra Gardner, a member of the International Association of Machinists, sought to bring a lawsuit against her union and several of its officers, alleging that the General Secretary-Treasurer, Dora Cervantes, had misused union funds for personal travel, thereby breaching her fiduciary duty under federal law. Before filing suit, Gardner and other union members sent multiple letters to the union’s leadership demanding an accounting of the allegedly misappropriated funds and requesting that the union itself bring legal action against the implicated officers. The union responded by commissioning an independent accounting firm to investigate the claims, which ultimately found no evidence of wrongdoing. The union’s Executive Council, relying on this report, declined to take further action.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed Gardner’s verified application for leave to file suit under 29 U.S.C. § 501(b). The district court denied her application, concluding that Gardner had not satisfied the statutory “demand requirement” because the union had responded to her request by conducting an accounting and found no basis for further action. The court did not address whether Gardner had shown “good cause” to proceed with her claim, as required by the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Gardner had properly satisfied the demand requirement. The appellate court reasoned that Gardner’s letters clearly demanded both an accounting and that the union bring suit, and the union’s failure to initiate legal action meant the demand was not fully met. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Gardner’s application and remanded the case for the district court to consider whether Gardner has demonstrated good cause to proceed with her § 501 claim. View "Gardner v. International Association of Machinists" on Justia Law

Dorothy Seabrook, a black woman, was the Family Programs Manager for the U.S. Army Reserve Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. In 2013, she was involved in disciplinary actions against an employee, Scott Hamilton. Subsequently, the Army investigated Seabrook for creating a toxic work environment and making inappropriate comments and physical contact. In 2014, she was suspended for two weeks and reassigned to another division. Seabrook filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint in January 2015, alleging discrimination based on race, color, and sex. She received a poor performance evaluation in February 2015, which she believed was retaliatory, leading her to file a second EEO complaint.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigated and found no discrimination. Seabrook then filed a pro se complaint in federal court, which was construed as alleging disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim and denied her motion to alter or amend the judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that Seabrook failed to plausibly allege that the Army's actions were motivated by discriminatory bias. The court found that Seabrook's allegations did not support claims of disparate treatment, as her comparators were not similarly situated. Her hostile work environment claim failed because the alleged actions were not objectively abusive or severe. Lastly, her retaliation claim was dismissed due to a lack of causal connection between her EEO activity and the adverse employment actions. The court concluded that Seabrook's complaint did not meet the pleading standards required to survive a motion to dismiss. View "Seabrook v. Driscoll" on Justia Law