Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Teledyne terminated Shekar’s employment; 10 days later Teledyne sought injunctive relief, alleging that Shekar had accessed or attempted to access Teledyne’s servers, containing confidential information. There was a large data transfer between a Teledyne server and Shekar’s laptop computer on the day he was terminated. Before his termination, Shekar emailed Teledyne’s confidential information to his personal email addresses and saved it on his computers. Shekar refused to return electronic equipment provided by Teledyne for Shekar’s use at home. Teledyne asserted violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The district court issued a temporary restraining order requiring Shekar to return Teledyne’s electronic information and equipment and later granted Teledyne’a preliminary injunction, noting Shekar’s failure to comply with the TRO. The injunction required Shekar to provide “unrestricted access” to all of his devices that were capable of storing electronic information. The court later found Shekar in contempt for not producing several devices, not accounting for Teledyne’s electronic information, and not providing complete and truthful answers to interrogatories. The Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over Shekar’s appeal of his motion to vacate the preliminary injunction, which the court characterized as a “belated appeal” of the preliminary injunction. Since Shekar cannot appeal the preliminary injunction, he cannot appeal the contempt order while the underlying litigation remains pending. View "Teledyne Techs. Inc. v. Shekar" on Justia Law

Hively began teaching as a part‐time adjunct professor at Ivy Tech in 2000. In 2013, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that she had been “discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation” as she had been “blocked from fulltime [sic] employment without just cause.” After exhausting the procedural requirements in the EEOC, she filed suit, pro se, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e (Title VII). The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Title VII does not apply to claims of sexual orientation discrimination. The court relied on precedent, but acknowledged the EEOC’s criticism of its position and that “It seems unlikely that our society can continue to condone a legal structure in which employees can be fired, harassed, demeaned, singled out for undesirable tasks, paid lower wages, demoted, passed over for promotions, and otherwise discriminated against solely based on who they date, love, or marry.” View "Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll." on Justia Law

Elkhart Community Schools (ECS), has employed Riley, an African‐American female, as a teacher since 1980. She has an administrator’s license and is pursuing her doctorate in education. In 2010, she was named the ECS Teacher of the Year. From 2005-2013, Riley unsuccessfully applied for 12 different administrative positions with ECS. Riley filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge, claiming that race, sex, and age discrimination were the reasons that ECS had not promoted her. The EEOC sent Riley a right to sue letter. Riley filed suit, alleging race, sex, and age discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for ECS on all counts, dismissing some claims on procedural grounds, and dismissing the remaining claims because Riley had failed to produce sufficient evidence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Of the positions for which action was not time-barred, one was given to an African-American woman; Riley did not apply for two; and one position was a lateral move so that Riley did not suffer an adverse employment action. Riley did not produce evidence of pretext with respect to other positions. ECS produced the list of factors that the screening committee considered in recommending candidates. View "Riley v. Elkhart Cmty. Schs." on Justia Law

Since 2004, Poullard, an African-American man, has worked at the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center as a training specialist. He received a promotion to the GS‐11 pay grade in 2006, but since then, has received neither a permanent promotion nor a raise. He filed suit, alleging that the refusal to promote him or increase his salary constituted discrimination based on sex and race and that he was subjected to unlawful retaliation and a hostile work environment based on the same lack of pay and recognition, and other incidents. The court rejected the claims on summary judgment, concluding that some claims were time‐barred based on Poullard's failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies under 29 C.F.R. 1614.105(a). On the timely claims, the court held that Poullard had not suffered an adverse employment action and that a reasonable jury could not find that the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. While it appears that Poullard may not have been managed well or fairly, three arguably race‐tinged remarks, even in combination with the pay disparity and a letter of admonishment, did not show that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. View "Poullard v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Schaefer, a server at Walker’s Illinois Original® Pancake House restaurants, alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201–19, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1 to 105/15. Those laws provide that tips count toward the minimum wage. In Illinois, employers must pay at least 60% of the normal minimum wage (the tip-credit rate). Because the Illinois tip-credit rate is higher than the federal minimum, the restaurants paid servers the Illinois rate. Schaefer contends that, until May 2011, the restaurants failed to give servers information that federal law requires as a condition of paying a tip-credit wage and that servers spent some of their time doing non-tipped duties such as slicing mushrooms and tidying up, so that the restaurants had to pay the full minimum wage for that time. The district court certified the suit as a class action on behalf of approximately 500 servers, then granted summary judgment to the restaurants. The Seventh CIrcuit affirmed, citing a Department of Labor regulation, 29 C.F.R. 531.56(e), that describes “related duties” that may be performed by a tipped employee without requiring the employer to pay the full cash wage. The restaurants adequately informed servers about the tip-credit law. View "Schaefer v. Walker Bros. Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2006, Southern Illinois University (SIU) hired Dr. Hatcher as an assistant professor of political science. In 2010 Hatcher assisted a graduate student in making a sexual harassment complaint about a faculty member. Hatcher was up for tenure and promotion to associate professor in 2011. Hatcher had received positive annual evaluations. Her external reviewers all recommended tenure.The political science department voted in favor of promotion and tenure. The College of Liberal Arts committee voted 5‐4 in favor of tenure and 5‐4 against promotion, noting Hatcher’s success in teaching and service, but expressing concern about her lack of academic publications in prestigious journals. The dean recommended that she receive neither tenure nor promotion. The provost agreed. Hatcher was denied tenure and, later, fired. Two male professors in Hatcher’s department were promoted and awarded tenure. The Review Board found that the provost did not sufficiently explain his decision; the Chancellor agreed, but declined to reverse the denial. Hatcher filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Her subsequent suit was dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part. Hatcher did not produce evidence from which a jury could conclude that SIU was lying about its reason for denying her tenure; she was not engaging in speech protected under Title VII or by the First Amendment when she assisted the student with the sexual harassment report. The court reversed dismissal of her claim of retaliation for filing a charge with the EEOC. View "Hatcher v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ." on Justia Law

In 1994, Shott, a tenured associate professor of biostatistics at Rush University, sued, claiming discrimination by refusing to make reasonable accommodations for her religion (Orthodox Judaism) and disability (rheumatoid arthritis). A jury rejected Shott’s claim of religious discrimination but awarded her $60,000 for disability discrimination. She sued Rush again in 2011, alleging that Rush refused to increase her salary or promote her in retaliation for her earlier lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Rush. While that lawsuit was pending, Shott sued Katz (42 U.S.C. 1981), whom she had occasionally helped with statistical analysis, alleging that, in retaliation for her litigation Katz impeded her career advancement by rebuffing her invitations to collaborate. Katz was also Shott’s treating rheumatologist; she claimed he failed to timely respond to requests for prescription refills, requiring her to have an examination every six months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, noting that Shott had not alleged that Katz’s medical care affected Shott's employment. Nor did the examination requirement amount to a material adverse action. “If she was not willing to comply with that obviously reasonable condition, she should have tried to find a new doctor, not filed a federal civil rights lawsuit.” Shott failed to allege a sufficient “nexus” between Katz’s refusal to collaborate and her career advancement; Katz’s decisions about what research to pursue, and with whom, are protected by the First Amendment. View "Shott v. Katz" on Justia Law

In 2011, Horning won the subcontract for roofing work at the Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The Davis‐Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. 3141–43, requires contractors who perform construction for the federal government to pay their workers the “prevailing wage.” Department of Labor regulations at that time set the base rate for a Dayton Sheet Metal Worker at $26.41 per hour; the fringe benefit rate was another $16.82 an hour. The workers were properly classified and received the appropriate base rate. All employees who work at Horning for more than 90 days are eligible for insurance; some receive vacation days. After a year, they become eligible for matching contributions to a 401(k) account. Accountants advised Horning about the amount to deposit into its benefits trust to comply with ERISA and Davis‐Bacon. Horning deducted a flat hourly fee from the paycheck of each Medical Center worker, regardless of whether the employee was eligible for any benefits. The amount did not correspond to the actual monetary value of the benefits each individual employee received. The Union filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729–3733, rather than filing under Davis-Bacon. The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of Horning. Under the False Claims Act, the Union had to show that Horning knowingly made false statements (or misleading omissions) that were material to the government’s payment decision. The Union did not proffer enough evidence to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that Horning acted with such knowledge. View "Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Assoc. v. Horning Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

Felix suffers from mental health disabilities, including PTSD, major depressive disorder, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and phobia. She takes prescribed medication and attends counseling. Felix was employed from 1998 to 2013 in the Appleton Division of Motor Vehicles customer service facility, administering road tests, performing clerical duties, and collecting fees. She “was punctual, reliable, friendly with customers, and patient with new drivers.” She excelled in administering road tests, but did not meet expectations in financial accountability. A 2011 rule change precluded an overall rating of satisfactory if the employee did not meet expectations in specified areas, including financial accountability. Felix was given an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory and was placed on probation. Her difficulties persisted. Her employer's procedures called for a final performance improvement plan which, if not completed successfully, would result in her discharge. Felix began to experience panic attacks and notified her supervisor of her anxiety disorders. One panic attack included hysterical screaming and self-harm. Her co-workers called 911. She did not return to work. An independent medical examiner concluded that she “remains at increased risk for potentially violent behavior toward self and others within the workplace.” Her employment was terminated. She sued under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Felix, reasoning that she was discharged not solely because of her disabilities but based on workplace behavior that indicated that she posed a safety risk to herself and others. View "Felix v. Wis. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

William Charles Construction (WCC) entered into a labor agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation for the “Biggsville” construction project to expand a section of Rt. 34 to four lanes. A jurisdictional dispute between two unions, each claiming the right for their member drivers to operate large trucks involved in the excavation work, was resolved by an arbitrator. Later, a Joint Grievance Committee (JGC) determined, under a subordinated collective bargaining agreement, that WCC owed the Teamsters back pay and fringe benefit contributions ($1.4 million) for having assigned the operation of heavy trucks to the International Union of Operating Engineers rather than the Teamsters. A second JGC award determined that WCC was liable for two days’ back pay for having assigned work to two Teamsters in violation of other Teamsters’ seniority rights. WCC filed a declaratory action under the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185. The court granted the Teamsters summary judgment, finding that WCC filed its complaint outside the statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to the Teamsters and dismissed the Teamsters’ counterclaim for enforcement of one of the JGC awards. WCC's challenge to the awards is not barred by the statute of limitations because WCC did not receive notice of their final entry. The greater of the two JGC awards is void because WCC did not agree to arbitration by the JGC. View "William Charles Constr. Co., LLC v. Teamsters Local Union 627" on Justia Law