Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The U.S. Department of Labor brought the underlying lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, alleging that Appellants Brian Bowers and Dexter Kubota sold their company to an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) at an allegedly inflated value. The government’s case hinged on a single valuation expert, who opined that the plan overpaid for that company. The district court rejected the opinion, and the government lost a bench trial. The district court denied Appellants’ request for attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs under EAJA, finding that the government’s litigation position was “substantially justified” and that it did not act in bad faith.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the government’s position at trial was substantially justified, and in denying attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs under EAJA. The panel noted that the government could not rely on red flags alone, such as the “suspicious” circumstances of the ESOP transaction, to defend its litigation position as “substantially justified.” The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in reducing the award of taxable costs because it relied on a clearly erroneous finding of fact in reducing the magistrate judge’s recommended award of taxable costs. View "JULIE SU V. BRIAN BOWERS, ET AL" on Justia Law

Three private contractors providing war-zone security services to the Department of Defense (DOD) appealed a district court order remanding to Nevada state court this suit brought by a group of their employees who guarded DOD bases, equipment, and personnel in Iraq. The guards alleged that their working conditions violated the contractors’ recruiting representations, their employment contracts, and the Theater Wide Internal Security Services II (TWISS II) contract between the contractors and the Department of Defense.The Ninth Circuit reversed. The panel held that the contractors met the limited burden imposed by the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), which permits removal of a civil action against “any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof . . . for or relating to any act under color of such office.” To satisfy this requirement, a removing private entity must show that (a) it is a “person” within the meaning of the statute; (b) there is a causal nexus between its actions, taken pursuant to a federal officer’s directions, and the plaintiff’s claims; and (c) it can assert a colorable federal defense. There was no dispute that the contractors, as corporations, were “persons” for purposes of Section 1442(a)(1). The panel held that the contractors sufficiently pleaded that there was a causal nexus between their actions and the guards’ claims. View "NICHOLAS DEFIORE, ET AL V. SOC LLC, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court determining that the State Board of Labor Relations did not act unreasonably, illegally, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion when it applied the clear and unmistakable waiver standard to a union's claim that the town's unilateral change to its pension plan constituted a refusal to bargain collectively in good faith, holding that there was no error.The Town of Middlebury appealed the labor board's determination that the Town violated the Municipal Employee Relations act (MERA), Mass. Gen. Stat. 7-467 et seq., by unilaterally changing the Town's practice of including extra pay duty in calculating pension benefits for members of the Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No. 34. The appellate court concluded that the labor board did not abuse its discretion or act unreasonably, illegally, or arbitrarily when it declined to apply the "contract coverage" standard adopted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2019. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was proper for the appellate court to apply the clear and unmistakable waiver standard, rather than the contract coverage standard, in determining when whether the union had waived its statutory right to bargain collective regarding the manner in which the Town calculated its members' pension benefits. View "Middlebury v. Fraternal Order of Police, Middlebury Lodge No. 34" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Commission imposed a $1,000 sanction against an employer’s attorney for submitting misleading documentation to an Administrative Judge (AJ). The Court of Appeals affirmed the sanction and the Commission’s award of permanent disability benefits to the employee. On certiorari review, the Luisiana Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the sanction should have been affirmed. View "Howard Industries, Inc. v. Hayes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed the nursing facility where she worked as an aide for nine years was so chronically understaffed that she never took a rest break and frequently had to work through her meal breaks. After her termination, Plaintiff brought a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) against Respondents Southland Management LLC and The Ensign Group Inc. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring a representative PAGA action. The trial court granted summary judgment on a different issue, holding that Plaintiff had not offered any “competent proof that one or more cognizable Labor Code violations occurred during her employment in connection with her right to meal and rest periods.” The court entered a judgment of dismissal, and Plaintiff appealed.The Second Appellate District reversed. The court concluded that Respondents did not produce sufficient evidence to meet their initial burden of production on the standing issue, i.e., that Plaintiff had not suffered a Labor Code violation during her employment. The court explained that Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that “scheduling and understaffing issues, high patient-to-nurse ratio, and a heavy workload” made it functionally impossible for her to take meal and rest breaks. Respondents’ moving papers did not address or negate those allegations. Because Respondents did not furnish evidence tending to negate Plaintiff’s allegations that their practices conflicted with their written break policies, they did not meet their initial burden of production, and summary judgment should have been denied. View "Arce v. The Ensign Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff an electrical technician, was injured when a broken hatch providing access to the roof of a commercial building slammed shut on his back, herniating several of his discs. He sued the building’s owner and management company for negligence and premises liability, contending that defendants had failed either to repair a dangerous condition of which they were aware or to warn him of it. A jury returned a special verdict for Acosta and awarded him damages in excess of $12.6 million.   The Second Appellate District reversed. The court explained that a property owner who hires an independent contractor may be liable to the contractor’s employee for injuries sustained on the job only if the owner exercises retained control over any part of the contractor’s work in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injuries, or the employee is injured by a concealed hazard that is unknown and not reasonably ascertainable by the contractor. In the present case, Plaintiff does not contend that defendants exercised any retained control over the work site, and the undisputed evidence established that Plaintiff and his employer could reasonably have ascertained the hazardous condition of the site—i.e., that the mechanism designed to hold the roof hatch open was broken and the ladder that provided access to the hatch did not reach all the way to the roof. View "Acosta v. MAS Realty, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that she suffered sex-based wage discrimination while working at Consolidated Shoe Company and, what’s more, was retaliated against when she complained about it. Before the district court, she sought to show wage discrimination by comparing her wages to those of a male co-worker at Consolidated Shoe. But the co-worker, a graphic designer, had a meaningfully different role at the company than Plaintiff, a content creator and part-time photographer. Because the two did not perform similar jobs, Plaintiff could not rely on the co-worker as a comparator to show wage discrimination. So the district court granted summary judgment to Consolidated Shoe. Plaintiff appealed but dropped her comparator argument. She instead argued that her complaint also included a broader theory that women at Consolidated Shoe were categorically paid less than men.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that to survive summary judgment Plaintiff must produce evidence that would allow a jury to find that she was discriminated against in violation of Title VII. But what Plaintiff provided would not permit a reasonable jury to find for her. And she did not suffer any materially adverse action because she raised concerns about the alleged sex discrimination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Consolidated Shoe. View "Ashley Noonan v. Consolidated Shoe Company, Inc." on Justia Law

In October 2021, L.O. petitioned for a restraining order against Defendant pursuant to section 527.6. The petition alleged that Defendant had been harassing L.O. because she is transgender by, among other things, posting disturbing YouTube videos about her, using a cell phone to film her, and committing an assault against her. The court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) pending an evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing at which L.O. and Defendant testified, the trial court found that L.O.’s testimony was “credible” and that Defendant had demonstrated “that he does, in general, have animus towards transgender people.” Accordingly, the court issued a five-year restraining order in favor of L.O. in accordance with section 527.6. The same day that the restraining order was issued on behalf of L.O., the City petitioned for a workplace violence restraining order against Defendant on behalf of five City employees pursuant to section 527.8. Defendant contends that both restraining orders were erroneously issued.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court wrote that it agreed with respondents that Defendant had forfeited his contentions by failing to comply with the applicable rules of appellate procedure. The court explained that Defendant’s briefs do not properly cite the record and are replete with unsupported legal and factual assertions. Because Defendant failed to appropriately cite the record, he forfeited any argument that the challenged orders were erroneously issued. Moreover, the court wrote that Defendant’s briefs do not set forth all the evidence upon which both restraining orders are based. View "L.O. v. Kilrain" on Justia Law

Fuller, a VA medical technician, began treatment for mental disorders in 2016. Subsequently, a patient complained about how Fuller had treated him. Fuller received a written letter of counseling. Twice, a VA employee who was dating Fuller’s second-level supervisor made sexual remarks to Fuller. Fuller complained to VA management. Fuller insulted her coworker and received a letter of reprimand. Fuller failed to prepare a procedure room, which caused a delay. Fuller argued with a coworker in front of a patient.Fuller then requested an accommodation, based on her mental health conditions. Fuller was transferred to a different supervisor. Fuller was reported for violating sterilization protocol and received a notice of proposed removal based on that incident; failure to carry out assigned work, which caused a delay in patient care; and conduct unbecoming a federal employee. Fuller rejected a “last chance agreement,” in which the VA promised to hold her removal in abeyance if Fuller waived her rights to bring existing or future claims and to use the EEOC complaints procedure. She was then terminated.The EEOC found no discrimination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the VA in Fuller’s suit, alleging retaliation under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, 29 U.S.C. 791. The reprimand was not an adverse employment action. Fuller cannot establish causation for her retaliation theories based on her accommodation request and her rejection of the last chance agreement’s waivers. View "Fuller v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Intervenor UNITE HERE Local 11 (Union) was the exclusive collective bargaining representative for a unit of employees whom Kava Holdings LLC employed at the Hotel Bel-Air. Kava temporarily closed the Hotel for extensive renovations and laid off all the unit employees. As Kava prepared to reopen the Hotel, Kava conducted a job fair to fill about 306 unit positions. Approximately 176 union-affiliated former employees applied for those positions. Kava refused to rehire 152 of them. The National Labor Relations Board found that Kava committed unfair labor practices. The Board ordered various remedies, including reinstatement of the former employee applicants who were affected by Kava’s discriminatory conduct. Kava petitioned for review of the Board’s order and a supplemental remedial order, and the Board cross-applied for enforcement.   The Ninth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Kava Holdings, LLC’s petition for review and granted the National Labor Relations Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order, which found that Kava committed unfair labor practices in violation of Sections 8(a). The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Kava committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to rehire union-affiliated former employees so that Kava could avoid its statutory duty to bargain with the Union. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Kava committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as it reopened the Hotel and by unilaterally changing the bargaining unit’s established pre-closure terms and conditions of employment. View "KAVA HOLDINGS, LLC V. NLRB" on Justia Law