Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Jeremy Smith, a customer care technician for Cox Enterprises, Inc., received long-term disability benefits for seven years due to severe back pain and multiple surgeries. In 2019, Aetna, the plan administrator, terminated his benefits, concluding he could work under certain conditions. Smith appealed, providing additional medical evidence, including a consultative examination from Dr. Harris, which supported his disability claim. Aetna upheld the termination, leading Smith to file a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Cox Enterprises, Inc. Welfare Benefits Plan. The court found that Aetna's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that it was reasonable for Aetna to discount the opinions of Smith's primary care physician and the Social Security Administration's disability determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Aetna abused its discretion by failing to adequately discuss and consider conflicting evidence, particularly Dr. Harris's consultative examination and the Social Security Administration's disability determination. The court found that Aetna did not engage in a deliberate and principled reasoning process, as required by ERISA regulations. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to remand the matter to Aetna for reconsideration of Smith's claim. View "Smith v. Cox Enterprises, Inc. Welfare Benefits Plan" on Justia Law

The case involves Jose Rosado, a Hispanic male of Colombian origin, who worked as an Information Technology (IT) Specialist for the United States Navy. Rosado alleged that he was denied promotions on five occasions between 2014 and 2018 due to race, national origin, and age discrimination, as well as retaliation for his prior Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity. The promotions in question were for various IT Specialist positions within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast (NAVFAC SE).In the lower court, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the Navy. The court concluded that Rosado failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation for any of the promotion decisions. Specifically, the court found that Rosado did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he was equally or more qualified than the individuals who were selected for the positions or that the Navy's decisions were influenced by discriminatory or retaliatory motives.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Rosado did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he failed to show that the selected candidates were similarly situated in all material respects or that unlawful discrimination played any part in the Navy's decision-making process. Additionally, the court found that Rosado did not present sufficient evidence to support his retaliation claims, as there was no indication that retaliatory animus influenced the Navy's actions.In summary, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Navy, concluding that Rosado did not provide enough evidence to support his claims of discrimination and retaliation. View "Rosado v. Secretary, U.S. Department of the Navy" on Justia Law

Three states challenged an executive order issued by President Joseph R. Biden, which mandated that federal contractors pay their workers a minimum hourly wage of $15. The states argued that the President exceeded his authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) and that the order violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the nondelegation doctrine. The district court for the Southern District of Texas agreed with the states, finding that the FPASA did not grant the President broad authority to set minimum wages for federal contractors and that the executive order was a major question beyond the President's authority. The court permanently enjoined the executive order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the executive order was a permissible exercise of the President's authority under the FPASA. The court found that the FPASA's language was clear and unambiguous, granting the President broad authority to prescribe policies necessary to carry out the Act's provisions, as long as those policies were consistent with the Act. The court determined that the executive order met these requirements, as it aimed to promote economy and efficiency in federal procurement by ensuring contractors paid their workers adequately.The Fifth Circuit also addressed the application of the major questions doctrine, concluding that it did not apply in this case because the FPASA's text was clear and unambiguous. The court noted that the President's exercise of proprietary authority in managing federal contracts did not raise a major question requiring clear congressional authorization. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's permanent injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State of Texas v. Trump" on Justia Law

Betty Grooms, a Missouri clerk of court, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Alice Bell and Judge Steven Privette, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights through discrimination and retaliation, and violations of her substantive due process rights. Grooms, a Republican, had defeated Bell, a Democrat, in an election for Circuit Clerk. Bell, who retained her job under Grooms, later married Privette, a Republican judge. Tensions arose when Bell and Privette were uncooperative with Grooms, leading to Bell's resignation and announcement to run for Circuit Clerk. Privette ordered Grooms to prepare detailed spreadsheets, which he repeatedly rejected, and initiated a contempt prosecution against her, which was eventually dismissed by the Missouri Supreme Court.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissed Grooms's claims, ruling that the defendants did not violate her clearly established First Amendment rights and did not violate her substantive due process rights. The court found that the defendants' actions did not constitute adverse employment actions under clearly established law and that Grooms did not suffer a serious deprivation of a protected interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Bell and Privette were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim, as Grooms failed to show that their actions constituted adverse employment actions under clearly established law. Additionally, the court found that Grooms's substantive due process claim was inadequate, as she did not demonstrate a serious deprivation of a protected interest. The court concluded that the defendants' conduct did not shock the conscience and did not violate Grooms's substantive due process rights. View "Grooms v. Privette" on Justia Law

Kristin Casey, a former employee of D.R. Horton, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the company and one of its employees, Kris Hansen, alleging sexual harassment and other claims. D.R. Horton moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement that included an arbitration clause governed by California law. Casey opposed the motion, citing the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which allows plaintiffs to invalidate arbitration agreements in cases involving sexual harassment. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the EFAA was inapplicable due to the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially reviewed the case and granted the motion to compel arbitration, accepting Hansen's joinder. The court concluded that the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement meant that California law, not the EFAA, applied. Casey then filed a petition for a writ of mandate to challenge this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the EFAA preempts state law attempts to compel arbitration in cases related to sexual harassment disputes. The court determined that the EFAA applies to the parties' transaction because it sufficiently involved interstate commerce. The court also concluded that the EFAA's rule of unenforceability of arbitration agreements in sexual harassment cases preempts the state law and that parties cannot contract around the EFAA through a choice-of-law provision. Consequently, the court granted Casey's petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Casey v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Kristie Williams, a former employee of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for her daughter, who was allegedly sexually assaulted while serving in the Marine Corps. The University approved her leave, but Williams claimed she continued to receive work-related communications and criticism from her supervisors during her leave. This led to her resignation, and she subsequently sued the University, alleging interference with her FMLA rights and retaliation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied the University’s motion to dismiss, which argued that the suit was barred by state sovereign immunity. The court reasoned that Williams might have been seeking family-care leave under the FMLA, for which the Supreme Court had previously held that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Williams’s suit could proceed regardless of whether she sought family-care leave, active-duty leave, or servicemember-family leave. For family-care leave, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hibbs confirmed that Congress had abrogated state sovereign immunity. For active-duty and servicemember-family leave, the court concluded that Alabama waived its sovereign immunity under the plan-of-the-Convention doctrine when it joined the Union, as these provisions were enacted pursuant to Congress’s constitutional authority to raise and support the military. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the University’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama" on Justia Law

Republic Airways Inc. and Hyannis Air Service, Inc. entered into individual employment agreements with pilot candidates, offering incentives in exchange for employment commitments. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its local unions argued that these agreements violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because they were not bargained for and fell outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between the parties.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the unions' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, determining that the dispute was "minor" under the RLA and thus subject to arbitration. The court found that the resolution of the dispute required interpretation of the CBAs, which mandated arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the employment agreements were arguably justified by the broad discretionary language in the CBAs, which allowed the carriers to offer incentives and determine their terms. The court emphasized the RLA's strong preference for arbitration and concluded that the carriers' arguments were not frivolous or insubstantial. Therefore, the dispute was classified as minor and subject to arbitration, not federal court jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the unions' state law claim. View "International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Republic Airways Inc." on Justia Law

Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. (Nabors) performed oil well plug and abandonment work for the City of Long Beach (the City) between 2012 and 2014. The City had contracted with Tidelands Oil Production Company (Tidelands) for services on the Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project, and Tidelands subcontracted the work to Nabors. The City and Tidelands had concluded that the work was not subject to prevailing wage laws, and Nabors was not informed otherwise during the bid process. After completing the work, Nabors faced a class action from its employees for unpaid prevailing wages, which led to arbitration awards and federal court judgments against Nabors.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained demurrers by the City and Tidelands, dismissing Nabors’s claims for indemnity under Labor Code sections 1781 and 1784. The court ruled that section 1784 could not be applied retroactively to Tidelands and that the arbitration awards confirmed by the federal court did not qualify as court decisions under section 1781.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the section 1784 claim against Tidelands, agreeing that the statute could not be applied retroactively. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the section 1781 claim against the City, holding that the federal court’s confirmation of arbitration awards did qualify as court decisions classifying the work as public work. The case was remanded with instructions to enter a new order overruling the City’s demurrer to the section 1781 cause of action. Nabors was awarded costs on appeal against the City, while Tidelands was awarded costs on appeal against Nabors. View "Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

Prestige Home Care Agency, operated by Nursing Home Care Management Inc., did not compensate its employees for travel time between clients' homes. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) sued Prestige for this and other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The District Court found Prestige's actions to be willful violations of the FLSA and granted summary judgment in favor of the DOL. Prestige appealed the summary judgment, the exclusion of its expert witness, and the denial of its motion for sanctions against the DOL.The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania excluded Prestige’s expert witness, denied Prestige’s motion for sanctions, and granted summary judgment for the DOL on all claims. The court found that Prestige willfully violated the FLSA by not compensating for travel time, failing to pay for short breaks, improperly compensating overtime, and not keeping accurate records.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that travel time between job sites during the workday is compensable under the FLSA. It affirmed the District Court’s finding that Prestige violated the FLSA’s recordkeeping requirements and acted willfully in its violations, extending the statute of limitations to three years. The court also upheld the District Court’s calculation of back wages and liquidated damages, finding the DOL’s estimates sufficient given Prestige’s inadequate records.The Third Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s exclusion of Prestige’s expert witness, who made several legal errors in his report. The court also upheld the denial of sanctions against the DOL, as the documents in question were already in Prestige’s possession and had little impact on the case. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in all respects. View "Secretary United States Department of Labor v. Nursing Home Care Management Inc." on Justia Law

A financial advisor, employed by Principal Securities, Inc., was terminated for failing to obtain a second client consent when rebalancing accounts using a new trading system. The advisor argued that the termination report filed by Principal with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) was misleading and initiated arbitration to seek changes to the report. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the advisor, recommending changes to the termination report to reflect that the advisor's failure was due to a lack of training and that the advisor was encouraged not to resign during the investigation.The Iowa District Court for Polk County vacated the arbitration award, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. The advisor appealed, and the case was transferred to the Iowa Court of Appeals. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, with the majority agreeing that the information provided by Principal was not defamatory or misleading. The dissenting judge believed that substantial evidence supported the arbitration award.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and applied a highly deferential standard of review. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the arbitrator's determination that the termination report was misleading and that the recommended changes were justified. The court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court's judgment, and remanded the case with instructions to confirm the arbitration award. View "Principal Securities, Inc. v. Gelbman" on Justia Law