Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The Union appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Medical Center and dismissal of the Union's petition to compel arbitration. At issue was when the Union requested arbitration, and when the Medical Center unequivocally and expressly rejected that request. The court held that it is a breach of the duty of good faith performance under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, for an employer to fail to respond within a reasonable time to a union’s communication which seeks to abide by a grievance process set forth in a collective bargaining agreement. In this case, it was not reasonable for the Medical Center to wait in silence for more than five months following the Union’s letter demanding arbitration, and then claim in litigation that the Union missed the statute of limitations. The Medical Center's delay of five months is a length of time nearly as long as the six months statute of limitations itself. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded in part, and vacated in part. View "SEIU v. Los Robles Reg'l Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

The EEOC brought a subpoena enforcement action against McLane where the EEOC is investigating a charge of sex discrimination filed against McLane by one of its former employees. At issue was whether the district court correctly held that some of the information sought by the subpoena is not relevant to the EEOC’s investigation. The court concluded that the district court erred by refusing to enforce the subpoena’s request for production of pedigree information where the information is relevant to the EEOC's investigation. In this case, the employee's charge alleges that McLane’s use of the strength test discriminates on the basis of sex. To decide whether there is any truth to that allegation, the EEOC wants to contact other McLane employees and applicants for employment who have taken the test to learn more about their experiences. For similar reasons, the district court erred when it held that pedigree information is irrelevant “at this stage” of the investigation. Finally, the court vacated the district court's order denying enforcement of the subpoena’s request for the reasons for termination, and remanded so that the district court can rule on whether requiring McLane to produce that information would in fact be unduly burdensome. View "EEOC V. McLane Co." on Justia Law