Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

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

A Christian humanitarian organization offered a remote customer service representative position to an applicant who was openly in a same-sex marriage. After the applicant disclosed her marital status while inquiring about parental leave, the organization rescinded the job offer, citing its policy that limits employment to those who comply with its religious standards, including a prohibition on sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman. The applicant, who identifies as Christian and is active in LGBTQ advocacy, sued the organization for discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and marital status under federal and state law.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington initially granted summary judgment to the organization, finding that the church autonomy doctrine barred judicial inquiry into the religiously motivated employment decision. Upon reconsideration, the district court reversed itself, holding that the church autonomy doctrine did not apply because the organization’s hiring policy was facially discriminatory and could be evaluated using neutral legal principles. The district court also rejected the organization’s ministerial exception defense and other constitutional and statutory defenses, ultimately granting summary judgment to the applicant and entering judgment for stipulated damages.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 the ministerial exception applies because customer service representatives at the organization perform key religious functions central to its mission, such as communicating its ministries to donors, engaging in prayer with supporters, and inviting participation in its religious mission. The court concluded that these duties are vital to the organization’s religious purpose, and therefore, the ministerial exception bars the applicant’s employment discrimination claims. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of the organization. View "MCMAHON V. WORLD VISION INC." on Justia Law

Latonia Lister, the first African-American female firefighter in Las Vegas, sued the City of Las Vegas for employment discrimination under Title VII, alleging sex- and race-based discrimination and retaliation. The case stemmed from an incident on April 7, 2019, where her supervisor, Captain Michael Benneman, made offensive comments while feeding a dog. Lister reported the incident and later experienced additional incidents she considered discriminatory and retaliatory. She eventually requested a transfer out of her station.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada presided over the case. At trial, the jury found that the April 7 incident was severe or pervasive and objectively and subjectively offensive but was not motivated by race or gender. The jury concluded that the City did not discriminate against Lister or retaliate against her in violation of Title VII. Despite finding no liability, the jury awarded Lister $150,000 in damages. The district court reconciled the verdict by setting aside the damages award and entered judgment for the City. Lister's motion for a new trial was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the jury instructions were not erroneous and did not contain prejudicial errors. The court found no conflict between the instructions and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not resubmitting the verdict to the jury. The court determined that the district court acted within its discretion by polling the jury to clarify the verdict and reconciling the verdict on its own. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of judgment for the City and the denial of Lister's motion for a new trial. View "LISTER V. CITY OF LAS VEGAS" on Justia Law

Robert Platt, an employee of Sodexo, Inc., sued his employer, claiming that a monthly tobacco surcharge on his employee health insurance premiums violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Platt brought claims on behalf of himself and other plan participants to recover losses under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3), and a breach of fiduciary duty claim on behalf of the employer-sponsored health insurance plan (the Plan) for losses under ERISA § 502(a)(2). Sodexo sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision it unilaterally added to the Plan after Platt joined.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Sodexo’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement because Sodexo unilaterally modified the Plan to add the arbitration provision without Platt’s consent. The court found that Platt did not agree to arbitrate his claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that an employer cannot create a valid arbitration agreement by unilaterally modifying an ERISA-governed plan to add an arbitration provision without obtaining consent from the relevant party. The court held that Platt is the relevant consenting party for claims under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3) and that he did not consent to arbitration because he did not receive sufficient notice of the arbitration provision. However, the court held that the Plan is the relevant consenting party for the breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA § 502(a)(2) and that the Plan consented to arbitration.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Sodexo’s motion to compel arbitration for Platt’s claims under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3). It reversed in part the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration for the breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA § 502(a)(2) and remanded for the district court to consider Platt’s unconscionability defenses and the severability of the representative action waiver and any other arbitration clauses found unconscionable. View "PLATT V. SODEXO, S.A." on Justia Law