Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Paul D. Russell, a civilian employee at the Irwin Army Community Hospital in Fort Riley, Kansas, alleged that his female supervisor, Major Tamara Tran, discriminated against him and other male employees, creating a hostile work environment based on gender. Russell cited several incidents, including gender-segregated meetings, differential treatment in access to the supervisor, public criticism, changes to his job title, exclusion from leadership communications, and an attempt to appoint a less qualified female employee as acting chief during Tran’s maternity leave. An internal Army investigation found that Tran had discriminated on the basis of gender, violating Army policy, but cleared Russell of any wrongdoing.After exhausting administrative remedies, Russell filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, claiming a violation of Title VII due to a hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Army, finding that Tran’s actions, while motivated by gender bias, were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to meet the legal standard for a hostile work environment under Title VII. The court noted that the internal investigation’s findings did not address the required severity or pervasiveness analysis.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. Russell argued that the district court applied an overly stringent standard in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, but the Tenth Circuit held that Muldrow did not alter the established requirement that hostile work environment claims must show conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive. The Tenth Circuit also found that Russell had waived his argument regarding the weight of the internal investigation report. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the severity or pervasiveness standard remains controlling for hostile work environment claims under Title VII. View "Russell v. Driscoll" on Justia Law

A physician employed jointly by a Kansas hospital and its parent health system alleged that he was fired and later reported to the state medical licensing board in retaliation for reporting another doctor’s alleged sexual harassment of nurses. The physician had served in various roles at the hospital, including as Chief Medical Officer, and had made a formal complaint about a colleague’s conduct. After an internal investigation into an unrelated anonymous complaint about the physician’s own conduct, the hospital terminated his employment and subsequently referred several of his cases for outside peer review, which led to reports being filed with the state licensing board.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to the hospital and health system on the physician’s Title VII retaliation claims, finding that he could not show the reasons for his termination or the reports to the licensing board were pretextual. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims. The physician appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the physician presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the hospital’s internal investigation and subsequent actions were motivated by retaliatory animus, particularly under a “cat’s paw” theory, where biased subordinates influenced the ultimate decisionmakers. The court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the stated reasons for termination and reporting were pretextual, including evidence of disparate treatment and an unfair investigation. The Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on both Title VII retaliation claims and remanded for further proceedings. It also directed the district court to reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "Byrnes v. St. Catherine Hospital" on Justia Law

Several healthcare employees in Colorado, including those at the University of Colorado Hospital Authority and South Denver Cardiology Associates, were terminated after refusing to comply with their employers’ COVID-19 vaccination mandates. These mandates, implemented in 2021, required employees to either be vaccinated or obtain a medical or religious exemption. The plaintiffs declined vaccination and did not seek exemptions, resulting in their dismissal.Following their terminations, the plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, asserting nearly identical claims. They alleged violations of statutory, constitutional, and contractual rights, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state-law breach of contract and tort claims, and an implied private right of action under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds such as sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim. The district courts dismissed all claims, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled any viable legal theory. The courts also denied the plaintiffs’ requests to amend their complaints after judgment was entered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that none of the statutes cited by the plaintiffs—including the Emergency Use Authorization statute, the PREP Act, and 10 U.S.C. § 980—unambiguously conferred individual rights enforceable under § 1983. The court also found that the constitutional claims, including those based on due process and equal protection, were not adequately pled and that the breach of contract claim was waived for lack of argument. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ judgments, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted and that the lower courts did not abuse their discretion in denying leave to amend. View "Timken v. South Denver Cardiology Associates" on Justia Law

A former employee of an Oklahoma-based aviation training company alleged that his one-year employment contract was not renewed because he is a disabled veteran and because he complained to human resources about his supervisor’s disparaging comments regarding his disability. The employee, a Marine veteran with a high VA disability rating, worked as a Loadmaster Instructor in Kuwait. During his tenure, he disclosed his disability status for affirmative action purposes and later informed his supervisor and a co-worker when his rating increased. After this disclosure, his supervisor made inappropriate remarks about the disability system and the employee’s status, which led to a complaint and a subsequent reprimand of the supervisor. The employee’s FAA flight certificate expired shortly before his contract ended, and he received a negative performance appraisal from his immediate supervisor. The company’s higher management, who were responsible for contract renewal decisions, cited subpar job performance and the lapse of the flight certificate as reasons for not renewing the contract.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims. The court found that the employee failed to present sufficient evidence that the stated reasons for non-renewal were pretextual under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or that the decision was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The court also held that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) does not protect against discrimination based solely on disability status, but rather on military service itself.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the employee did not create a triable issue of fact under the “cat’s paw” theory linking a supervisor’s alleged bias to the ultimate decisionmakers. The court also confirmed that USERRA does not extend to claims of discrimination based solely on disability status. View "Sellman v. Aviation Training Consulting" on Justia Law

Bethany Scheer was employed by Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc. (SCL) from 2014 to 2019. During her employment, Scheer faced performance issues and was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) that included mandatory counseling through SCL’s employee assistance program (EAP). Scheer initially agreed to the PIP but later refused to sign a form authorizing the disclosure of her counseling attendance and compliance, leading to her termination. Scheer sued SCL under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discrimination based on a perceived disability.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of SCL. The court concluded that the mandatory referral to counseling did not constitute an adverse employment action because it did not cause a significant change in Scheer’s employment status, as required by precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis rejected the significance test previously used and established a new standard requiring plaintiffs to show they suffered "some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment." The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration under the new standard set forth in Muldrow. The district court must now determine if Scheer suffered "some harm" as a result of SCL’s actions. View "Scheer v. Sisters of Charity" on Justia Law

David Jenny, an employee of L3Harris Technologies, Inc., suffered from recurring cellulitis, which was aggravated by frequent international travel required by his job. He requested and was granted an accommodation to book seats with extra legroom on long flights. However, within three months of this accommodation, Jenny was denied permission to travel for routine business, removed from his leadership role, and ultimately discharged. Jenny sued L3Harris for discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act.The United States District Court for the District of Utah acknowledged that Jenny established a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation and produced sufficient evidence that L3Harris’s explanation for his discharge was pretextual. Despite this, the district court granted summary judgment to L3Harris, citing the exception set out in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., concluding that Jenny’s evidence did not sufficiently link his discharge to any discriminatory or retaliatory motive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court improperly applied the Reeves exception. The Tenth Circuit held that Jenny had indeed met the requirements of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Jenny, did not meet the requirements for invoking the Reeves exception. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to L3Harris and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jenny v. L3Harris Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

Nancy Stark, as the legal guardian and mother of Jill Finley, an incapacitated person, filed a lawsuit against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Finley, who suffered a hypoxic brain injury in 2007, was initially approved for long-term disability benefits by Reliance. However, in 2022, Reliance terminated her benefits, claiming recent testing did not support her total disability. Stark appealed, and Reliance reinstated the benefits in 2023. Stark then sued, seeking a surcharge for financial harm caused by the wrongful termination, claiming breach of fiduciary duty for not providing internal records, and contesting the deduction of social security payments from Finley's disability payments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted Reliance's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court found that Stark did not plausibly allege a claim for equitable relief under ERISA, nor did she demonstrate that Reliance's actions violated the terms of the insurance policy or breached fiduciary duties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that Stark was not entitled to attorney’s fees incurred during the administrative appeal under ERISA’s § 1132(a)(3) or § 1132(g). The court also found that Stark's claims regarding the SSD offset were time-barred and waived due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Additionally, the court concluded that Stark did not allege any concrete harm resulting from Reliance's alleged failure to provide requested records during the administrative appeal. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss all of Stark's claims. View "Stark v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Darren Markley sued his employer, US Bank, in federal court, alleging age discrimination under federal law and wrongful termination under Colorado state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of US Bank on the federal claim and dismissed the state law claim without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Markley did not appeal the dismissal of the state law claim or request the district court to reconsider it under diversity jurisdiction, despite knowing that diversity jurisdiction existed.Markley then filed his state law claim in the Denver District Court. US Bank removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss the claim, arguing claim preclusion. The district court granted the motion, holding that Markley could have pursued his state law claim in the original federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that his failure to do so precluded him from bringing the claim in a new case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that claim preclusion applied because Markley could have litigated his state law claim in the prior federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a final judgment on the merits in the earlier action, which included the resolution of the federal claim, precluded Markley from bringing the state law claim in a new lawsuit. The court also found that the district court did not violate the party presentation principle by addressing the issue of diversity jurisdiction, as it was within the court's power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law. View "Markley v. U.S. Bank National Association" on Justia Law

J.H. participated in an employee welfare-benefit plan insured by Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, with her son, A.H., as a beneficiary. After seeking benefits for A.H.'s yearlong stay at a mental-health treatment center, Anthem denied coverage, and Plaintiffs' appeal to Anthem was unsuccessful. Over a year after their final appeal through Anthem was decided, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to recover benefits under § 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the action, concluding it was time-barred under a provision of the Plan that required civil actions under ERISA § 502(a) to be brought within one year of the grievance or appeal decision. Plaintiffs argued that another sentence in the Plan set a three-year limitations period, creating an ambiguity that should be interpreted in their favor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the two provisions were not inconsistent and both applied. The court explained that the one-year limitations period for § 502(a) actions and the three-year limitations period for other actions were distinct and could both be applicable. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, concluding that Plaintiffs' action was time-barred as it was filed beyond the one-year limitations period specified in the Plan. View "J.H. v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance" on Justia Law

The case involves two Utah corporations, 3484, Inc. and 3486, Inc., created by film producer David Wulf to produce Hallmark movies. The companies shared personnel, including Jennifer Ricci and Brett Miller, who were responsible for various production roles. In April 2021, drivers employed by 3484 contacted a union representative to discuss organizing. Ricci questioned driver April Hanson about union activity and asked her to keep the conversation confidential. Later, Miller warned driver Roy Brewer that production would move to Canada if the drivers organized. The drivers went on strike, and after the strike, 3486 refused to reinstate them, alleging misconduct.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that the Employers committed unfair labor practices, including unlawful interrogation and threats, and ordered remedies. The Employers argued that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's procedures and remedies were unauthorized or violated their constitutional rights. The Employers filed a petition for review, and the NLRB filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings, except for the finding that 3484 unlawfully interrogated Hanson. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Employers' constitutional challenges and 3486's challenge to the Board's statutory authority because these arguments were not preserved for appellate review. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, except for the finding related to Hanson's interrogation, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "3484, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law