Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Aerotek petitioned for review of the Board's decision affirming the ALJ's findings that Aerotek violated the National Labor Relations Act in not hiring the Salts and not considering them for hiring. A "salting" campaign is a campaign by which they actively try to organize and recruit for their union on non-union jobsites. The Eighth Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that anti-union animus contributed to Aerotek's actions. The court also held that the Board abused its discretion by determining that one of the Salts was disqualified from full backpay and instatement. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's finding of a violation, but remanded in part for reconsideration of the remedy. View "Aerotek, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint that alleged claims related to his termination from the police department. The court held that plaintiff's retaliation claim, on its face, was outside the bounds of the Title VII statute; nothing in plaintiff's complaint or his deposition testimony indicated that he was pursuing a Title VII claim encompassing race-based discrimination and thus he could not submit a claim via an affidavit at the summary judgment stage; and the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's contract claim where the strain of public policy that plaintiff sought to invoke was simply inapposite to the facts in this case. View "Winfrey v. Forrest City, Arkansas" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Rock-Tenn in a civil rights action alleging religion and sex discrimination. The Eighth Circuit held that Title VII did not impose a legal obligation to provide an employee an articulated basis for dismissal at the time of firing, and an employer was certainly not bound as a matter of law to whatever reasons might have been provided; rather, it was well-established that a employer may elaborate on its explanation for an employment decision; and, in this case, there was no contradiction between the explanation given to plaintiff at the time of his termination and the non-discriminatory reasons for termination that Rock-Tenn articulated during this litigation. The court also held that plaintiff failed to show sufficient evidence that Rock-Tenn's proffered reasons for firing him -- poor performance -- were pretexts for discrimination. View "Rooney v. Rock-Tenn Converting Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed petitioners' challenge to the FMCSA's final rule entitled "Medical Examiner’s Certification Integration." Petitioners are the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and an OOIDA member. Petitioners alleged that the new administrative rule means that OOIDA members were being subjected to more onerous sleep apnea tests, which in turn has led to delays, or worse, denials of medical certification to drive commercial motor vehicles. The court held that petitioners have not provided any evidence to support the second element of standing: causation. The court found that the two affidavits submitted by petitioners to prove that they have standing either contained generalized allegations or were not fairly traceable to the final rule. View "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assoc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to at-will employees in an action alleging breach of contract against Panera. Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated store managers, alleging that Panera violated employee agreements by imposing a bonus cap. The court noted that under Missouri law, the agreements amounted to offers by Panera to enter into an unilateral contract; the court held that the Supreme Court of Missouri would conclude that an offerree must merely begin performance; and since each of the managers in the class here had at least begun performing under the offer, Panera could not modify the offer terms as to any manager. The court rejected Panera's contention that it reserved the power to modify or terminate its bonus offer before the managers began performing in accordance with that offer, and Panera's derivative argument that the district court should have revisited its decision to certify the class after determining that the bonus offers were offers to make a unilateral contract. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's rejection of Panera's novation, waiver, estoppel, and commercial frustration defenses. View "Boswell v. Panera Bread Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in district court, alleging sex, race, and age discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The Eighth Circuit found that plaintiff likely adequately exhausted her remedies, and her pleadings indicated this prerequisite, especially on a motion to dismiss. Even if the lack of an initial verified charge would have indicated lack of exhaustion, the documents plaintiff supplied with her objections, including a copy of the verified charge mailed on July 28 and received by the EEOC, plus the Notice of Right to Sue, indicated she had cured any deficiency in the exhaustion requirements. Finally, the district court's failure to conduct a de novo review after plaintiff filed timely and specific objections was reversible error. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions to allow plaintiff to amend her pleadings. View "Rush v. Arkansas DWS" on Justia Law

Southern petitioned for review of the Board's decision ordering the company to bargain with the union. The Eighth Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Southern violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by making a number of unlawful campaign statements that threatened plant closure; by making promises of benefits to employees who voted to decertify the union; by promulgating an unlawful reporting rule; by creating the impression that protected activities were under surveillance; and by unlawfully interrogating employees. However, the Board erred by determining that Southern violated section 8(a)(1) by communicating to employees that continued unionization was futile; by disparaging the union; and by threats of discipline, job loss, and other reprisals. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the Board's determination that Southern violated section 8(a)(3) because the company was motivated by anti union animus, and Southern did not prove otherwise. The Board did not err in determining that the company violated sections 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally restricting union meetings to a cubicle because the union's meeting space was a subject of mandatory bargaining. Finally, there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's findings that the 2012 petition was tainted by the company's unfair labor practices. View "Southern Bakeries, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting the Union's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In this case, plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Union had engaged in unfair labor practices, in violation of section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(b)(4). The court held that the Union's conduct did not violate the statute absent a "cease doing business" object beyond the disruption of relationships with customers and suppliers, which any picketed business would suffer. The cessation of business between the Markets and their customers and suppliers was not an object prohibited by section 158(b)(4)(ii)(B). The court held that enmeshing a secondary party in the union's conflict with the owner of a now-defunct business was not conduct sufficient to constitute a violation of the statute. View "Wartman v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 653" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for MJ Optical in plaintiff's suit alleging that she was the victim of sex discrimination, age discrimination, and a hostile work environment. The court held that plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action and thus her claims for disparate treatment on the basis of sex failed. Likewise, plaintiff's claim of age discrimination failed because she could not maintain a claim for disparate treatment on account of her age. Finally, plaintiff's hostile work environment claim failed because she did not indicate in a timely manner the complained-of conduct was unwelcome. View "Blake v. MJ Optical, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2012, plaintiff filed suit against Union Pacific under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq., alleging liability for a lower back injury. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that plaintiff's suit was time-barred because he should have known about his injury and its cause more than three years before filing suit. In this case, plaintiff, a locomotive engineer for Union Pacific, testified that in 2007 and 2008 he experienced recurring lower-back pain that he attributed to potholes in the tracks, and that this was the same pain for which he later sought medical treatment. View "White v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law