Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

North Mountain Foothills Apartments (NMFA), a company managing a large apartment complex in Phoenix, Arizona, hired Jasper Press as a maintenance technician during a period of increased workload due to a heatwave. Press discussed his compensation and the poor conditions at the complex with several coworkers. Management became aware that other employees knew about Press’s pay and housing benefits, leading to a meeting where Press was reprimanded for these discussions and told not to talk about pest issues with residents. The day after this meeting, Press was terminated, allegedly for failing to complete work orders. Press filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging unfair labor practices.An administrative law judge held an evidentiary hearing and found that NMFA violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating Press about his wage discussions, issuing overly broad directives restricting such discussions, threatening reprisals, and discharging Press for engaging in protected activities. The NLRB adopted these findings and ordered remedies including reinstatement and back pay for Press. NMFA appealed, raising for the first time constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure and process, and also contested the Board’s factual findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to consider NMFA’s unexhausted constitutional claims because such structural challenges are not suited to agency resolution. The court rejected NMFA’s Article II removal protection challenge for lack of demonstrated harm, found no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in NLRB proceedings, and held that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions within the NLRB does not violate due process. On the merits, the court found substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that Press was discharged for protected activity and granted enforcement of the NLRB’s order. View "NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. NORTH MOUNTAIN FOOTHILLS APARTMENTS, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of building engineers and craftsmen represented by a union worked at several stores operated by a large retail company. After the company and the union failed to reach agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement, the union members voted to reject the company’s final offer and began a strike. The company’s final offer expired, and after three months on strike, the union ended the strike and made an unconditional offer for its members to return to work. The company then locked out the union members who reported for work, stating it would not reinstate them until a new agreement was in place. The union filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that the lockout was an unfair labor practice.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing and found that the company violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by locking out employees without providing a timely, clear, and complete offer setting forth the conditions necessary to avoid the lockout. The ALJ recommended reinstatement and make-whole relief for affected employees. The NLRB adopted the ALJ’s findings, modifying the remedy to include compensation for any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms resulting from the lockout.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed petitions from both the union and the company, as well as the NLRB’s application for enforcement. The court held that it had jurisdiction, found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB’s conclusion that the lockout was unlawful, and determined that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion in fashioning remedies. The court enforced the NLRB’s order, holding that the company’s lockout violated the Act because employees were not clearly and fully informed of the conditions for reinstatement, and that the NLRB’s make-whole relief, as ordered, was within its authority. The court denied both the union’s and the company’s petitions for review and granted enforcement of the NLRB’s order. View "MACY'S INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" on Justia Law

A group of more than 80 former at-will employees of a nonprofit healthcare system in Washington were terminated after refusing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination mandate issued by their employer, which was in response to an August 2021 proclamation by the state’s governor requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated. The employees alleged that, at the time, only an “investigational” vaccine authorized for emergency use was available, and they claimed their rights were violated when they were penalized for refusing it. They also argued they were not adequately informed of their right to refuse the vaccine.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington first dismissed all claims against the governor, then dismissed the federal claims against the healthcare system, and denied the employees’ motions for leave to amend and reconsideration. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against the healthcare system.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that none of the employees’ statutory or non-constitutional claims, which were based on various federal statutes, regulations, agreements, and international treaties, alleged specific and definite rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court also found that the employees’ constitutional claims failed: the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim was foreclosed by Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho; the procedural due process claim failed because at-will employment is not a constitutionally protected property interest; and the equal protection claim failed because the mandate survived rational-basis review. The court further held that amendment of the federal claims would be futile and upheld the district court’s dismissal of the state law claims against the governor and its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the healthcare system. View "Curtis v. Inslee" on Justia Law

Three former employees of a large convenience store chain alleged that they were denied the opportunity to apply for a promotion to West Coast regional director because of their age. All three had strong performance records and had expressed interest in advancement. When the position became available in early 2020, the company did not announce the vacancy or solicit applications, as it had done in the past. Instead, it selected a younger candidate, who had previously served as a regional director in another area, without giving the plaintiffs a chance to apply. At the time, the plaintiffs were in their mid-50s, while the selected candidate was 45.After the plaintiffs filed suit in California state court, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because they had not applied for the position. The court also found that, even if a prima facie case existed, the employer had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, and the plaintiffs had not shown that this reason was pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that, when an employer does not announce a vacancy or solicit applications, plaintiffs are not required to show that they applied for the position to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The court also clarified that, although a ten-year age difference is the usual threshold for a “substantial” age gap, plaintiffs can overcome a smaller gap by providing evidence that age was a significant factor in the employer’s decision. The court found that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of pretext and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "CALDRONE V. CIRCLE K STORES INC." on Justia Law

An employee of a large retail company alleged that, during her six-week employment at a California store, she was denied meal and rest breaks, not paid for overtime, did not receive proper wage statements, and was required to use her personal cell phone for work without reimbursement. She filed suit in state court, asserting individual, putative class, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims for violations of California’s Labor Code. The company removed the case to federal court.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed several of the plaintiff’s class claims and denied class certification for the remaining class claim. The plaintiff continued to pursue her individual and PAGA claims. Shortly before trial, the parties settled the individual claims for $22,000 under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, with the plaintiff dismissing her PAGA claims without prejudice. The settlement allowed the plaintiff to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for work performed on her individual claims, as permitted by law. The district court awarded the plaintiff $297,799 in attorneys’ fees and $14,630 in costs, after she voluntarily reduced her fee request by nearly half to exclude time spent on class certification and legal assistants’ work.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the section 998 settlement agreement did not preclude the plaintiff from seeking attorneys’ fees for work on related claims under the standard set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, as long as those claims were intertwined with her individual claims. However, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide a clear explanation for the fee award. The court vacated the fee award and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation for any future fee determination. View "Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

A hospital employee in Oregon, who identified as a practicing Christian, requested a religious exemption from her employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, citing her belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and that she must avoid substances that could harm her body. The employer granted her exemption from vaccination but required her to wear personal protective equipment and undergo weekly antigen testing using a nasal swab treated with ethylene oxide. The employee objected to the testing, claiming her research showed the swab was carcinogenic and that using it would violate her religious duty to protect her body. She requested alternative accommodations, such as saliva testing or full-time remote work, but the employer denied these requests and ultimately terminated her employment when she refused to comply.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that her objection to the testing was based on secular, medical concerns rather than a bona fide religious belief. The court concluded that while her general belief in protecting her body as a temple was religious, her specific objection to the nasal swab was rooted in her personal interpretation of medical research.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that to state a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII and Oregon law, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the specific accommodation request is rooted in a bona fide religious belief, not merely a secular or personal preference. The court found that the employee’s complaint did not sufficiently connect her religious beliefs to her objection to antigen testing, as her concerns were based on her own medical judgment rather than religious doctrine. The court declined to adopt a more lenient pleading standard and affirmed the dismissal with prejudice. View "DETWILER V. MID-COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER" on Justia Law

A civilian employee of the Defense Logistics Agency in Hawaii, who had served in the National Guard and developed post-traumatic stress disorder, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. After a series of workplace incidents, the agency suspended him indefinitely, citing concerns about his access to sensitive information. The employee claimed that the agency failed to provide reasonable accommodations and improperly deemed him a direct threat.The employee filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint, which eventually led to a final agency decision (FAD) against him. The agency transmitted the FAD and related documents electronically using a secure system, but made several errors in providing the necessary passphrase to decrypt the document. As a result, the employee’s attorney was unable to access the FAD for several weeks, despite repeated requests for assistance and clarification. The attorney finally received an accessible, decrypted copy of the FAD by email on December 5, 2022. The employee filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 88 days later. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of Defense, finding the complaint untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the initial electronic transmission, and denied equitable tolling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court held that the 90-day limitations period for filing suit under the Rehabilitation Act did not begin until the attorney received effective notice of the agency’s decision, which occurred when he received the decrypted FAD on December 5. Alternatively, the court held that equitable tolling was warranted because the attorney diligently sought access to the FAD and was prevented by extraordinary circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits. View "ASUNCION V. HEGSETH" on Justia Law

Eight firefighters employed by a regional fire and rescue agency in Washington State requested religious exemptions from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued in August 2021 by the state’s governor, which required healthcare providers to be vaccinated. The fire agency, which provides emergency medical and fire services to a large population, including a state prison, allowed employees to seek religious accommodations. After reviewing the requests and consulting with union representatives, the agency determined it could not accommodate unvaccinated firefighters in their roles without imposing an undue hardship on its operations, citing health and safety concerns, operational burdens, and potential financial risks. The firefighters were offered the option to use accrued leave or take a leave of absence, with the possibility of returning if the mandate changed.The firefighters sued in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Washington Law Against Discrimination for failure to accommodate their religious beliefs. The district court assumed the firefighters had bona fide religious objections but found that accommodating their requests would impose an undue hardship on the agency, given the increased risk of COVID-19 transmission, the large number of exemption requests, and the inadequacy of proposed alternatives such as masking and testing. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the fire agency.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that, under the standard clarified in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer demonstrates undue hardship when the burden of accommodation is substantial in the context of its business. The court found that the fire agency had shown substantial health, operational, and financial costs associated with accommodating the exemption requests, and that the proposed alternatives were insufficient. The summary judgment for the agency was affirmed. View "PETERSEN V. SNOHOMISH REGIONAL FIRE AND RESCUE" on Justia Law

An employee of a California corporation, who was represented by a union and covered by two successive collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), brought two lawsuits in state court against her employer. She alleged violations of various California labor and business statutes, including claims for unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest breaks, sick leave, wage statement inaccuracies, expense reimbursement, and retaliation. The CBAs included provisions regarding pay, leave, breaks, and a dispute resolution process for grievances.The employer removed both cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, arguing that the employee’s claims were preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), which would create federal jurisdiction. The district court determined that only the claims related to untimely wage payments were preempted and thus converted to federal claims under § 301. These federal claims were dismissed because the employee had not exhausted the grievance procedures required by the CBAs. The court found that the remaining state law claims were not preempted, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, and remanded those claims to state court. The employer appealed the remand orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the remand orders because the district court’s remand was not based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in removal procedure. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the remaining state law claims were not preempted by § 301, as they arose from California statutes rather than the CBAs and did not require interpretation of the CBAs. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the non-preempted claims to state court. The judgment was affirmed. View "RENTERIA-HINOJOSA V. SUNSWEET GROWERS, INC." on Justia Law

Three California-based truck drivers who worked for a national transportation company challenged the legality of their employer’s compensation system. The drivers alleged that the company’s pay plan, which combined hourly wages with a bonus based on certain activities, violated California’s Labor Code by failing to properly compensate for nonproductive time and by not reimbursing necessary business expenses, such as personal cell phone use. They also claimed the company failed to provide accurate wage statements and sought penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law.After the case was removed from state court, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification and granted summary judgment to the employer on most claims. The court found that the pay plan qualified for a statutory “safe harbor” because it paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked, with additional bonuses for certain activities, and thus did not require separate compensation for nonproductive time. The court also found no evidence that the employer knew or should have known about any off-the-clock work. The only claims that proceeded to trial were for failure to reimburse business expenses. At trial, the jury found in favor of the employer, and the court entered judgment accordingly, also awarding costs to the employer.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the employer’s pay plan met the requirements of California Labor Code § 226.2(a)(7)’s safe harbor, as it paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked and provided additional bonuses. The court also found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding off-the-clock work or wage statement violations, and it upheld the district court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and award of costs. View "WILLIAMS V. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC." on Justia Law