Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Jay Anthony Dobyns, a former agent with the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), who sued the United States for failing to adequately protect him and his family from threats related to his undercover work. The government counterclaimed, alleging that Dobyns violated his employment contract and several federal regulations by publishing a book based on his experience as an agent and by contracting his story to create a motion picture. The Court of Federal Claims found that the government had not breached the settlement agreement but had breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, awarding Dobyns emotional distress damages. The court also found that the government was not entitled to relief on its counterclaim.The government appealed the Claims Court’s judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reversed the finding that the government breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Dobyns, having prevailed on the government’s counterclaim, sought attorneys’ fees and costs. However, the Claims Court denied his application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) as untimely. Dobyns appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Claims Court had abused its discretion and applied the incorrect legal standard. The Appeals Court held that the filing deadline for fee applications under EAJA is subject to equitable tolling. It found that Dobyns had justifiably relied on the government's representations about the procedure for Claims Court judgments, and thus his motion for attorneys’ fees under EAJA should be accepted as timely. The court reversed the Claims Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Dobyns v. United States" on Justia Law

Heather Walters, a Direct Support Professional at Brandi’s Hope Community Services, a long-term care facility for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, noticed that a resident had been physically abused. She attempted to report the incident to her supervisors but received no response. Walters then took a photograph of the resident's injuries and shared it with a former coworker. After an internal investigation, Walters was fired for violating company policy and HIPAA regulations by taking and sharing the photograph. Walters filed a lawsuit against Brandi’s Hope and its CEO, Danny Cowart, for retaliatory discharge and malicious interference with employment.The County Court of Lee County found in favor of Walters, awarding her $100,000 in damages. The defendants appealed to the Lee County Circuit Court, which affirmed the lower court's decision. The defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower courts' decisions, finding that the Mississippi Vulnerable Persons Act and the public policy exception established in McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., Inc. were in conflict.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding no conflict between the Mississippi Vulnerable Persons Act and the public policy exception established in McArn. The court held that Walters was eligible to claim wrongful termination under McArn, as she was fired for reporting illegal activity. The court affirmed the jury's verdict that Brandi’s Hope terminated Walters because she reported the abuse. The case was remanded to the County Court of Lee County for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals' decision to render judgment in favor of Cowart on the malicious-interference-with-employment claim was not reviewed and thus stands. View "Brandi's Hope Community Services, LLC v. Walters" on Justia Law

The case involves Carlos M. Rivera-Velázquez, an employee of the Caribbean Environmental Protection Division (CEPD), a component of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Rivera, a military veteran with a service-connected disability, was hired by the CEPD in 2001. Throughout his tenure, he expressed interest in being promoted to a GS-13 position. In 2006, the CEPD was reorganized, and Teresita Rodríguez became Rivera's supervisor. After Rivera returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2010, Rodríguez began checking on his well-being. In 2012, Rivera was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In 2014, Nancy Rodríguez became the chief of the Multimedia Permits and Compliance Branch and Rivera's supervisor. Rivera filed several formal and informal complaints about his treatment by his supervisors, alleging discrimination and harassment.In the lower courts, Rivera filed formal complaints with the EPA Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in 2011, 2017, and 2018, alleging discrimination and retaliation. He also filed claims of "harassment" under EPA Order 4711 in 2017 and 2018. The OCR and the EPA Order 4711 investigations found no merit to Rivera's complaints. Rivera then filed a complaint in the District Court in 2019, alleging employment discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Administrator of the EPA on Rivera's claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The court found that Rivera failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act or retaliation under Title VII. The court concluded that Rivera failed to show that his supervisors regarded him as having a disability, that he was subjected to an adverse action, or that there was a causal connection between his protected conduct and the alleged adverse actions. View "Rivera-Velazquez v. Regan" on Justia Law

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a Title VII employment discrimination action on behalf of black employees of Village at Hamilton Pointe, LLC, a long-term care facility in Indiana. The EEOC alleged that Hamilton Pointe and Tender Loving Care Management, LLC (TLC), which provides services to Hamilton Pointe, subjected the employees to racial harassment. The district court granted TLC’s motion for summary judgment with respect to some of the employees, ruling that TLC could not be considered an employer under Title VII. The court also granted Hamilton Pointe’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the claims of forty employees. Seven remaining employees proceeded to a jury trial, with damages awarded to one employee. The EEOC appealed the grant of summary judgment for TLC and Hamilton Pointe, and the jury’s verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court found that the EEOC failed to establish that the employees were subjected to a racially hostile work environment that was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of their employment. The court also found that the EEOC failed to establish that TLC was a joint employer of the claimants. The court emphasized that the federal law governing racial harassment proscribes conduct that is so severe or pervasive as to change the conditions of the victim’s employment, but does not ensure that the worker will have wise and skilled superiors with a sharply honed sense of social justice and a mastery of personnel management skills. View "EEOC v. Village at Hamilton Pointe LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves pension plan participants, Evelyn Wilson and Stephen Bafford, who alleged that the plan administrator, the Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by not providing pension benefit statements automatically or on request, and by providing inaccurate pension benefit statements prior to their retirements. The district court initially dismissed the case, but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part the dismissal, allowing the plaintiffs to file amended complaints.Upon remand, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints, but the district court dismissed their claims again. The plaintiffs appealed once more to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit held that the lower court's prior mandate did not preclude the plaintiffs from pleading their claim for violation of ERISA on remand. The court also held that the plaintiffs stated a viable claim under ERISA by alleging that the plan administrator provided substantially inaccurate pension benefit statements.The court rejected the administrator’s argument that there were no remedies available for the ERISA violations the plaintiffs alleged. As a result, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "BAFFORD V. ADMINISTRATIVE CMTE. OF THE NORTHROP GRUMMAN PLAN" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of incarcerated individuals who were sent from a detention center to work at a recycling facility operated by Baltimore County, Maryland. The workers alleged that they were employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Maryland state laws, and thus entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the county, concluding that no reasonable adjudicator could view the incarcerated workers as "employees" under the FLSA.The district court's decision was based on the fact that the workers were part of a work detail program run by the Department of Corrections (DOC), which the court found had a rehabilitative, rather than pecuniary, interest in the workers' labor. The court also found that the workers did not deal at arms' length with their putative employer, as they were not free to negotiate the terms of their employment and were under the control of the DOC.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court clarified that there is no categorical rule that incarcerated workers cannot be covered by the FLSA when they work outside their detention facility’s walls and for someone other than their immediate detainer. The court also held that the district court applied the wrong legal standards in granting summary judgment to the county. The court emphasized that the question under the FLSA is whether the principal or primary purpose for using incarcerated workers at the recycling center during the time frame at issue was for “rehabilitation and job training.” The case was remanded for a fresh look at the facts under these clarified standards. View "Scott v. Baltimore County, Maryland" on Justia Law

Lonnie Billard, a former teacher at Charlotte Catholic High School (CCHS), sued the school for sex discrimination under Title VII after he was fired for his plans to marry his same-sex partner. The district court granted Billard's motion for summary judgment and denied CCHS's motion, which raised several affirmative defenses, both statutory and constitutional.The district court found that CCHS had indeed fired Billard because of his plans to marry his same-sex partner, which amounted to sex discrimination as defined by Title VII. The court rejected CCHS's affirmative defenses, including its interpretation of Title VII's religious exemption, its defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and its First Amendment defenses. The court also ruled on the ministerial exception, despite CCHS's waiver of that defense, and found that Billard did not satisfy the criteria for the ministerial exception.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that because Billard played a vital role as a messenger of CCHS's faith, he falls under the ministerial exception to Title VII. Therefore, the court instructed the district court to enter judgment for CCHS. View "Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Sterling Owens, an African American electric lineman, who worked for the Wyandotte County, Kansas Board of Public Utilities (BPU). BPU had a policy requiring all employees to maintain their primary residence in Wyandotte County. Owens, who also owned several properties, was accused of violating this policy. BPU conducted an investigation, which Owens claimed was discriminatory based on his race. He filed a formal workplace discrimination complaint, which led to an internal investigation that found no evidence of harassment or discrimination. Owens then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and was granted the right to sue in federal district court. He filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial. Owens was represented by two attorneys. His first-chair counsel, who had conducted all pretrial litigation, contracted COVID-19 midway through the trial and resorted to remote participation. The jury found BPU not liable on all counts. Owens appealed, asking for the jury’s verdict to be vacated and arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial and new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court emphasized that Owens failed to show he was prejudiced by the district court’s rulings. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Owens' motion for a mistrial and new trial. The court also rejected Owens' argument that his second-chair counsel's relative lack of experience led to prejudicial errors during the trial. The court concluded that Owens had not demonstrated that the alleged errors had a prejudicial impact on his right to a fair and impartial trial. View "Owens v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas" on Justia Law

Dr. Jennifer Seed, a former employee of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), filed a lawsuit against the EPA and the United States, alleging age discrimination. Seed claimed that she was involuntarily demoted to a junior position as older managers were replaced with younger employees. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the EPA, concluding that Seed had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim of age discrimination.The district court's decision was based on its finding that Seed had not provided direct evidence of discriminatory intent that would entitle her to a trial, nor had she provided indirect evidence that would give rise to an inference of discrimination. The court also found that Seed had not shown that she was treated less favorably than younger employees after her reassignment or that her treatment was based on her age.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed Seed's appeal, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of her reassignment claims because she lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court found that Seed had not demonstrated that a favorable court decision would likely redress her claimed injuries. The court therefore remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the grant of summary judgment and to dismiss the reassignment claim for lack of standing. View "Seed v. EPA" on Justia Law

The case involves Christine Savage, a police officer who filed a lawsuit against the Neptune Township Police Department and others for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2014, which included a non-disparagement clause. Savage filed a second lawsuit in 2016, alleging continued and intensified discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The parties entered into another settlement agreement in 2020, which also included a non-disparagement clause. After a television interview with Savage aired in 2020, the defendants claimed that Savage violated the non-disparagement provision of the settlement agreement.The trial court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the second settlement agreement, finding that the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) barred only non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, and that Savage violated a non-disparagement clause. The Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding the non-disparagement clause enforceable but holding that Savage had not violated it.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the non-disparagement clause in the settlement agreement is against public policy and cannot be enforced. The court found that the LAD protects Savage’s statements. The court concluded that the non-disparagement clause in the agreement directly conflicts with the LAD as it encompasses and would bar speech the statute protects. The court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. View "Christine Savage v. Township of Neptune" on Justia Law