Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

This case involves a wage dispute between an employee and his employer. The employee, George Huerta, filed a class action against his employer, CSI Electrical Contractors, seeking payment for unpaid hours worked. The case revolved around the interpretation of the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Order No. 16 and the term "hours worked."The Supreme Court of California was asked by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to answer three questions related to Wage Order No. 16. The first question was whether time spent waiting to exit a security gate on the employer's premises was compensable as "hours worked". The court concluded that it was, as the employer's mandated exit procedure, including vehicle inspection, signified a level of control over the employee.The second question was whether time spent driving between the security gate and employee parking lots while subject to employer-imposed rules was compensable. The court held that it could be compensable as "employer-mandated travel" if the security gate was the first location where the employee's presence was required for an employment-related reason other than accessing the worksite. However, this travel time was not considered "hours worked" as the employer's rules did not imply a requisite level of control.Lastly, the court was asked whether time spent on the employer's premises during an unpaid meal period, when workers were prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, was compensable as "hours worked". The court held that it was, as the employer's prohibition on leaving the premises prevented the employee from engaging in personal activities. The employee could bring an action to enforce the wage order and recover unpaid wages for that time. View "Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard an appeal from Bulk Transport Corp. against Teamsters Union No. 142 Pension Fund and its Trustees. The dispute originated from two collective-bargaining agreements between Bulk Transport and Teamsters Local 142, active from 2003 to 2006. The Union insisted that Bulk Transport apply one such agreement, the Steel Mill Addendum, to non-steel mill work (LISCO work), which Bulk Transport initially did, subsequently making pension contributions on behalf of the LISCO workers. However, when Bulk Transport lost the LISCO contract, they ceased these contributions, leading to the Pension Fund assessing a withdrawal liability of about $2 million under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA).After arbitration, Bulk Transport paid but demanded a review of the decision. The district court agreed with the arbitrator's ruling that Bulk Transport had adopted the Addendum by conduct, and thus the Pension Fund was entitled to the withdrawal liability. The district court also denied Bulk Transport's request for a refund.The Seventh Circuit, however, reversed the district court's decision. It held that the written agreement, not the practice or conduct, should dictate the terms of pension contributions to multi-employer plans. The written agreement in this case did not cover the LISCO work, and the court rejected the argument that Bulk Transport's conduct altered the substantive terms of the agreement. The court held that the writings were conclusive and that employers and unions could not opt-out of the requirements orally or through their course of conduct. The court affirmed the district court's denial of attorney's fees for the Pension Fund and remanded the case with instructions to order the Pension Fund to repay the withdrawal liability it collected from Bulk Transport. View "Bulk Transport, Corp. v. Teamsters Union Local 142" on Justia Law

In this North Carolina Supreme Court case, the plaintiff, Robin Kluttz-Ellison, was an employee at Noah’s Playloft Preschool. She filed workers’ compensation claims for two separate workplace accidents – one where she fell off a ladder and another where she tripped over a cot. Before these incidents, Kluttz-Ellison had had knee surgery and had been diagnosed with obesity. After the accidents, her healthcare providers determined that she needed knee surgery again due to loosening of the hardware in her knee. However, they believed the surgery could only be performed if she lost a significant amount of weight. They recommended bariatric weight-loss surgery, believing it was the only treatment that could achieve the necessary weight loss quickly.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that for an employee to receive workers' compensation for a medical treatment, the treatment must be directly related to the workplace injury. This means there must be a sufficiently strong causal relationship between the condition that requires treatment and the workplace injury. The court identified three criteria to meet this standard: 1) the workplace injury caused the condition that requires treatment, 2) the condition was aggravated by the workplace injury, or 3) the condition did not require medical treatment before the workplace injury but now requires treatment solely due to the workplace injury.In this case, the Court noted that neither the Industrial Commission nor the Court of Appeals applied this test. Instead, they focused on whether the bariatric surgery was medically necessary for the plaintiff to undergo knee surgery. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings applying the correct legal standard. View "Kluttz-Ellison v. Noah's Playloft Preschool" on Justia Law

This case involves Aaron Norgren and his father, Joseph Norgren, who worked for the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). Both men filed Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against DHS, as well as First Amendment retaliation and compelled speech claims against the DHS Commissioner, Jodi Harpstead. These claims stemmed from the denial of the Norgrens' religious exemption requests to workplace trainings on racism and gender identity. The lower court dismissed their complaints for failure to state a claim.Aaron Norgren argued he was denied a promotion due to his protected activities. The court found that Aaron plausibly established his case and reversed the dismissal of his Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. However, his First Amendment retaliation claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of Commissioner Harpstead's personal involvement in the alleged discriminatory practices.Joseph Norgren's Title VII discrimination claim was dismissed as he did not plausibly allege that he was constructively discharged or that Commissioner Harpstead was personally involved. His First Amendment retaliation claim was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence.Both Norgrens' compelled speech claims were dismissed. The court ruled that while the trainings advanced expressive messages that the Norgrens objected to, there was no evidence they were forced to affirmatively agree with any of the statements in the trainings or were threatened with penalties if they expressed their own viewpoints.Therefore, the court reversed the dismissal of Aaron's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims and affirmed the dismissal of the remaining claims. View "Norgren v. Minnesota Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

During her employment as an administrative assistant, Judy Valencia suffered a right knee injury, which was covered by workers' compensation. Following the knee injury, she altered her gait and started experiencing pain in her left foot, ankle, and hammertoe. She sought workers' compensation benefits for these injuries, contending that they were causally related to her compensable right knee injury. However, the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division denied the benefits, stating that the left foot, ankle, and hammertoe injuries were not related to the right knee injury. The Wyoming Medical Commission upheld the denial, and the district court affirmed the Commission's decision.In the Supreme Court, State of Wyoming, Valencia argued that her left foot, ankle, and hammertoe injuries either constituted a second compensable injury caused by her right knee injury or materially aggravated her preexisting left foot conditions. The court upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding that Valencia failed to meet her burden of proving either claim. The court noted that Valencia's treating physicians did not opine that her right knee injury or altered gait materially aggravated her preexisting left foot conditions. Additionally, the court found that an independent medical examiner's opinion, which stated that the right knee injury did not cause any temporary exacerbations or permanent material aggravation of Valencia's preexisting left foot conditions, was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of workers' compensation benefits for Valencia's left foot, ankle, and hammertoe injuries. View "Valencia v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho was tasked with answering a certified question of law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The question centered on the appropriate point of accrual for wage discrimination claims under the Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA) and the Idaho Equal Pay Act (IEPA). Plaintiff Lori S. Blasch accused her former employer, HP Inc., of wage discrimination and retaliation under the IHRA and the IEPA.The Idaho Supreme Court held that the one-year limitation period for IHRA claims begins when the pay-setting decision is made and communicated to the employee. As for IEPA claims, the court determined that they are subject to the four-year statute of limitations outlined in Idaho Code section 5-224. Furthermore, the limitation period for IEPA claims begins to run when the employee receives each discriminatory paycheck. The court made these decisions after reviewing the language of the relevant statutes and considering previous court decisions, legislative intent, and public policy. View "Blasch v. HP, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was presented with an appeal involving an Ohio hospital's mandate for its employees to get COVID-19 vaccines. The plaintiffs, a group of current and former employees who had requested religious exemptions from the mandate, sued the hospital for religious discrimination under Title VII and Ohio Revised Code § 4112 after the hospital initially rejected all religious exemptions. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, leading to this appeal.The appellate court affirmed the dismissal for the majority of plaintiffs, ruling they lacked standing to sue because they could not demonstrate sufficient injury. However, the court reversed the dismissal for two of the plaintiffs who had resigned after their religious exemption requests were denied but before the hospital changed its policy and granted all religious exemptions. The court held that these two plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that they were forced to resign, or "constructively discharged", and thus had standing to sue.Furthermore, the court found that these two plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the hospital failed to provide reasonable accommodations for their religious practices and treated them differently from other employees. Consequently, they had stated plausible claims for relief under Title VII and Ohio Revised Code § 4112. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning these two plaintiffs. View "Savel v. MetroHealth System" on Justia Law

The case was heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit between former Blue Cube employee Elizabeth Cerda and her former employer, Blue Cube Operations, L.L.C. Cerda had been terminated for receiving pay for hours she did not work and threatening to expose her co-workers to COVID-19. She sued Blue Cube under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII). The district court granted summary judgment to Blue Cube, which Cerda appealed.The Appeals Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Blue Cube. The Court found that Cerda failed to provide sufficient evidence for her FMLA claims. She did not adequately notify Blue Cube of her need or intent to take leave beyond her lunch breaks. The Court also dismissed Cerda's FMLA retaliation and Title VII sex discrimination claims due to lack of evidence of pretext. The Court found that Blue Cube had legitimate, non-retaliatory, and non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Cerda's employment.Furthermore, Cerda's Title VII sexual harassment claim was dismissed as she did not provide evidence that the harassment was based on her sex, was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment, or that Blue Cube had knowledge of the conduct. Lastly, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Cerda's request to reconvene a deposition on a second day. Thus, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Cerda v. Blue Cube Operations" on Justia Law

In the case considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, employee Michael Ashford sued his former employer, Aeroframe Services, and Aviation Technical Services (ATS), alleging unpaid wages and other damages. The case, which began in Louisiana state court and was later removed to federal court, was complicated by numerous claims and counterclaims among the parties, including third-party defendant Roger Allen Porter, who was Aeroframe's sole principal.Initially, Ashford and other employees pursued claims against Aeroframe and ATS, alleging that negotiations between the two companies led to Aeroframe's insolvency and employees' loss of wages. ATS, in turn, cross-claimed against Aeroframe and Porter, alleging financial losses from its failed attempt to acquire Aeroframe. Porter also cross-claimed against ATS, asserting tortious interference and unfair trade practices.The Court of Appeals previously remanded the case to the district court, finding that the parties were not aligned in their interests at the time of the lawsuit's filing, and the district court lacked jurisdiction due to lack of diversity among the parties. Upon reconsideration, however, the district court found new evidence indicating that the interests of Aeroframe, Porter, and the employees were aligned from the inception of the litigation and that an irrevocable settlement agreement between them existed, allowing removal under the relevant law.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the non-ATS parties' interests were aligned from the litigation's inception. The Court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims against ATS and the individual judgments against Aeroframe in favor of the employees. View "Ashford v. Aviation Technical Svc" on Justia Law

The plaintiff-Appellant, Kristen King, claimed that her employer, Aramark Services Inc., subjected her to a sex-based hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed King’s claims. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision on the New York State Human Rights Law claims but vacated the decision on the Title VII claims.The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the impact of Aramark’s alleged discriminatory acts were only incidentally felt in New York. Regarding the Title VII hostile work environment claim, the court found that King’s termination was not only a discrete act supporting a distinct claim for damages, but also part of the pattern of discriminatory conduct that comprises her hostile environment claim. The court held that because King’s termination occurred within the limitations period, the continuing violation doctrine rendered King’s hostile work environment claim timely. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of King’s New York State Human Rights Law claims but vacated the dismissal of King’s Title VII claims and remanded the case for further proceedings on those claims. View "King v. Aramark Services Inc." on Justia Law