Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner sought review of an adverse decision of the National Labor Relations Board ("Board") where an ALJ found that petitioner violated section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act ("Act"), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., when it placed a registered nurse on "investigatory suspension" because of her protected union activities. At issue was whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court held that the Board's general counsel offered insubstantial evidence, if any, to establish that the nurse's protected union activity was a motivating factor in her suspension and therefore, the general counsel failed to carry his burden under the first prong of the NLRB v. Wright Line test so as to make out a prima facie case and shift the burden of proof to petitioner. Therefore, the Board had no basis to conclude that petitioner violated section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and denied the Board's cross-application for enforcement.

In this case, a jury found that the FBI violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. 1447, by launching a security investigation of plaintiff, then an agent in its Saudi Arabia office, in retaliation for his filing of a discrimination complaint. On appeal, the government argued that plaintiff's claim was nonjusticiable under Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law because adjudicating Title VII liability called for the jury to second-guess security judgments committed by law to FBI discretion. The court vacated the judgment in plaintiff's favor and held that plaintiff's case, as presented to the jury, invited just such second-guessing. The court remanded for further proceedings, however, and held that plaintiff might be able to pursue his retaliation claims without calling into question unreviewable security decisions.

Plaintiff, acting pro se, sued defendant for alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act when defendant declined to hire her. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint where plaintiff failed to appear from a single motions hearing when she believed that motions she had previously filed for a change of venue and for the magistrate judge's recusal remained pending and operated to suspend all proceedings. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint where the district court's dismissal was inconsistent with precedent when it had not previously found plaintiff disobedient or dilatory, did not attempt lesser sanctions, and failed to explain why the case-ending sanctions of dismissal was necessary.

Plaintiffs petitioned for review of a National Labor Relations Board ("Board") finding where a union employee, with a traveler permit from plaintiffs, reported to his employer that a piece of machinery was not properly deployed. At issue was whether a union violated section 8(b)(1)(A)of the National Labor Relations Act ("Act") if a union disciplined a union member who complied with an employer's safety rules. The court granted the petition for review and held that it could not find any support in sections 7 and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act for the Board's decision where the board rejected the administrative law judge's effort to find a concerted activity out of the facts of the case, where the Board relied on its broad per se policy, and where it would be improper to remand to the Board to consider an alternative ground that it had explicitly declined to do.