Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

This case arose when petitioner, a hotel and casino, contracted with a restaurant corporation, which operated restaurants on petitioner's property. The primary issue raised by petitioner in this case was whether a property owner could bar employees of an onsite contractor from distributing union-related handbills on the property. The court had previously determined that the governing statute and Supreme Court precedent granted the Board discretion over how to treat employees of onsite contractors in circumstances such as this one. Consequently, the Board had exercised its discretion on remand in the prior case and concluded that a property owner generally could not bar employees of an onsite contractor from distributing union-related handbills on the property. Therefore, the court was bound by its prior decision and rejected petitioner's attempt to reopen it. The court also rejected petitioner's remaining arguments and denied the petition for review, granting the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order.

Plaintiff sued United States Attorney General Eric Holder, alleging that the FBI refused to hire him as a special agent because of his Type I diabetes in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. A jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him compensatory damages. Subsequently, the district court denied both Holder's motion for judgment as a matter of law and plaintiff's request for equitable relief. Both parties appealed. The court held that a reasonable jury could reasonably conclude that plaintiff's diabetes and treatment regiment "substantially limited" his major life activity of eating and that plaintiff was therefore disabled within the meaning of the Act. Rejecting the remaining arguments, the court held that the district court did not err in denying Holder's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of equitable relief to plaintiff and rejected plaintiff's assertion that the district court erred in denying him front pay or instatement based on Holder's after-acquired evidence defense and in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to back pay based on the testimony of Holder's expert witness.

OSHA cited and fined petitioner for failing to properly record certain workplace injuries and for failing to properly maintain its injury log between January 2002 and April 2006. OSHA issued the citations in November 2006, which was, as petitioner pointed out, at least six months after the last unrecorded injury occurred. Because "[n]o citation may be issued...after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation, " 29 U.S.C. 658(c), the court agreed with petitioner that the citations were untimely and should be vacated.

The Board sought enforcement of its order directing the Company to bargain in good faith with the Union. The Company, in its petition for review, contested the Board's certification of the election in which the Union was named the bargaining representative of the Company's valet parking employees. The court concluded that the Board established the record of its analysis under the three-prong test of Associated Milk Producers, Inc. v. NLRB, necessary to support its conclusions regarding the parties' intent with regard to the stipulated bargaining unit. Extrinsic evidence relied on by the Company failed to demonstrate error. The court also concluded that the failure of the Board Agent to provide identification badges to election observers did not result in an unfair or invalid election in the absence of evidence that the failure materially affected the result of the election, and the company offered no such evidence. Therefore, the Board acted within its discretion in sustaining the Union's challenges to the eight ballots cast by dual-rated bell-desk employees and in rejecting the Company's objections alleging misconduct by the Board's Agent. The Board was thus entitled to enforcement of its findings that the Company violated sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (5).

PTO sought review of a decision of the FLRA upholding an arbitrator's award in favor of the Union. The arbitrator concluded that PTO committed an unfair labor practice in violation of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(1) and (5), when it repudiated a provision in an agreement requiring that it make an annual request of the OPM to increase PTO's special schedule pay rates and, if OPM refused, to discuss "substantially equivalent alternatives" with POPA. PTO challenged the FLRA's determination that the provision constituted an "appropriate arrangement" under 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(3). The court granted PTO's petition on the ground that, under the collateral estoppel doctrine, the FLRA was bound by its earlier decision concluding the provision did not constitute an appropriate arrangement.

Dayton was served with a citation alleging over 100 willful violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 654. Dayton contested the citation and by 1997, its appeal was before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Twelve years later, the Commission issued an order affirming nearly all of the violations and assessed a penalty. Dayton asked the court to set aside the order because of the Commission's delay. The court declined, holding that the delay alone was not enough to set aside the order. The court held, however, that the Commission lacked substantial supporting evidence for its finding that Dayton's violations were willful. Accordingly, the court vacated that portion of the Commission's order and remanded for the Commission to reassess the nature of Dayton's violations and recalculate the appropriate penalty. The court affirmed the Commission's order in all other respects.

Comau sought review of a decision of the Board affirming the finding of an ALJ that Comau committed an unfair labor practice (ULP) in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5). The Board filed a cross-application for enforcement. The court granted Comau's petition and vacated the Board's finding that Comau committed a ULP by unilaterally changing its employees' healthcare benefits. The court concluded that the Board's finding was arbitrary and capricious because all parties agreed that Comau and the union were at impasse one December 22, 2008.

Appellant alleged that his employer, the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency, repeatedly rejected him for promotions in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment for the agency. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims stemming from John Milne's promotion where the district court never reached the issue; reversed its grant of summary judgment with respect to his age and race discrimination claims stemming from Mark Reefe's promotion where genuine issues of material fact existed; and remanded for further proceedings. The court disposed of appellant's remaining arguments and affirmed in all other respects.

Three related companies that operate New Jersey nursing homes petitioned for review of a Board decision. The Board found that petitioners violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by refusing to meet with their employees' union for the purpose of collective bargaining, and by refusing to timely and completely supply information requested by the union. At issue were petitioners' defenses of impasse and bad faith on the part of the union. Because substantial evidence supported the Board's findings that there was no genuine impasse and that the union's information requests were not made in bad faith, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement.

Registered nurses working for Veritas voted to make the United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals (Union) their bargaining representative. Veritas would not bargain with the Union because Veritas claimed that pro-Union conduct by supervising charge nurses had coerced the registered nurses' votes and tainted the election. Rejecting Veritas' claims, the NLRB certified the Union and found that Veritas had committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain. Veritas petitioned for review. The court concluded that precedent and substantial evidence supported the NLRB's conclusions. Therefore, the court denied Veritas' petition and granted the NLRB's cross-application of enforcement of its order.