Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants appealed the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, or alternatively for a new trial under Rule 59, or relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) on plaintiff's New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) claim. Plaintiff, diagnosed with cancer, cross-appealed the dismissal of her New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) claim. Plaintiff and her husband cross-appealed the dismissal of their Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), 29 U.S.C. 116(a), claims. The court held that, because plaintiff did not request a reasonable accommodation prior to her termination, the district court erred in denying defendants’ Rule 50 motion. Therefore, the court reversed that decision and vacated the jury award on the NYSHRL claim. However, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's NYCHRL claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denial of the COBRA claims on the merits. View "Vangas v. Montefiore Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit claiming that American Airlines violated its obligation under the McCaskill‐Bond amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 42112 note, to provide for the integration of the American Airlines and U.S. Airways seniority lists “in a fair and equitable manner.” Plaintiffs also claimed principally that the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”), the labor union representing American Airlines flight attendants, violated its duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151‐165, by failing to represent the former TWA flight attendants adequately during the creation of the integrated seniority list. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss. The court concluded that McCaskill‐Bond did not require American Airlines to reorder its own seniority list upon entering into a new merger in order to redress plaintiffs’ endtailing in 2001. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim against American Airlines under McCaskill‐Bond. The court also concluded that the union’s refusal to reorder the list, in accordance with its policy and the condition imposed by American Airlines, was not irrational or arbitrary; nor was the union’s decision to use the “length of service” rule to integrate the seniority lists unlawfully discriminatory in violation of the Railway Labor Act; and the amended complaint’s allegations do not raise an inference of “bad faith” on the part of APFA. The court considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and concluded that they are without merit. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Flight Attendants in Reunion v. Am. Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, OAG, alleging discrimination in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. OAG moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter, arguing that plaintiff was employed at a policymaking level and thus was subject to the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (GERA), 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16a, 2000e-16b, and 2000e-16c. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that GERA was inapplicable in this case. The court concluded that the district court's denial of OAG's motion to dismiss under GERA does not qualify as an immediately appealable order under that doctrine. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal. View "Fischer v. New York State Dept. of Law" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, members of an electrical union, appealed the dismissal of their claims against their union. Plaintiff alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.621 et seq., violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 411 et seq., the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. 141 et seq., and the union’s duty of fair representation (DFR), as well as unlawful retaliation for complaints. The court concluded that the district court erroneously ruled that a union official’s expressions of resentment of plaintiffs’ claims of age discrimination could not evince retaliatory animus existing prior to the time the resentful statements were made. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded with respect to the ADEA claims to which the magistrate judge’s recommendation of dismissal was based solely on the fact that the referral occurred prior to the February 2009 union meeting. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Kazolias v. IBEW" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging violation of his due process rights and that defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously by terminating his employment. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject‐matter jurisdiction. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff does not have a private right of action under the Due Process Clause of the sort recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Therefore, the court concluded that this claim was properly dismissed. However, the court found that the district court erred in determining that it lacked subject‐matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Atterbury v. U.S. Marshals Service" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from the disputed assignment of certain construction work on the Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project. UBC appealed the district court's conclusion that a May 4th arbitration award was not final and that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by issuing a May 12th arbitration award. Under a heightened standard of deference, the court concluded that it must defer to the arbitrator’s interpretation of Article 10, Section 3(D) of the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) as allowing him to alter the short‐form award when rendering his written opinion. The PLA does not define the term “short‐form,” nor does it specifically require that the second decision echo the result of the first.  The court concluded that, absent any such definitions or provisions, the arbitrator had the authority to interpret Article 10, Section 3(D) as allowing him to change or alter the first award in order to ensure full consideration of the three criteria required under Article 5, Section 8 of the National Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry. Accordingly, the court confirmed the May 13th Award and vacated the May 4th Award. View "United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, alleging a claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112-12117, and seeking damages. Plaintiff's claim is based on her employer’s decision to reduce her discretionary bonus after she was absent from work for four months. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant. The court concluded that the district court erred in ruling that denial or reduction of a bonus could not constitute an adverse employment action solely because the employer had discretion whether to pay a bonus. The court further concluded that, despite this error, the district court correctly determined that, even if plaintiff established an adverse employment action, she failed to present evidence that would support the necessary finding of discriminatory motivation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Davis v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Edu." on Justia Law