Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Eric and Todd Romano, trustees of the Romano Law, PL 401(k) Plan, filed a class action against John Hancock Life Insurance Company. They claimed that John Hancock breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by not passing through the value of foreign tax credits received from mutual funds to the defined-contribution plans. The Romanos argued that John Hancock should have used these credits to reduce the administrative fees charged to the plans.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of John Hancock, concluding that John Hancock was not an ERISA fiduciary regarding the foreign tax credits and did not breach any fiduciary duties. The court also ruled that the Romanos and the class lacked Article III standing because they failed to establish loss causation.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 John Hancock was not an ERISA fiduciary concerning the foreign tax credits because these credits were not plan assets. The court explained that the foreign tax credits were a result of John Hancock's ownership of mutual fund shares and were not held in trust for the benefit of the plans. Additionally, the court found that John Hancock did not have discretionary authority over the management or administration of the separate accounts that would make it a fiduciary under ERISA. Consequently, the Romanos' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and engaging in prohibited transactions failed as a matter of law. View "Romano v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA)" on Justia Law

Professional Labor Group, LLC (PLG) is an Indiana-based staffing firm that employs skilled tradesmen and assigns them to remote job sites for temporary work. PLG provides per diems and mileage reimbursements but does not compensate employees for travel time to and from these assignments during normal working hours. James Walters, a former PLG employee, filed a lawsuit claiming that this travel time should be compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied PLG's motion for summary judgment and granted Walters' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The district court concluded that federal law requires PLG to treat employee travel to overnight work assignments as compensable worktime when it occurs during normal work hours. The parties then stipulated to damages, and PLG reserved the right to appeal the summary judgment order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that PLG violated the FLSA by not compensating employees for travel time to overnight assignments during normal working hours. The court clarified that 29 C.F.R. § 785.39 requires compensation for overnight travel that cuts across an employee's workday, including travel during normal working hours on nonworking days. The court rejected PLG's arguments that the travel was normal commuting and that the Portal-to-Portal Act applied, emphasizing that the regulation's substitution language is a rationale, not a prerequisite for compensation. View "Walters v. Professional Labor Group, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioners sought to disqualify a trial court judge based on alleged bias and prejudice. The key facts revolve around a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit initiated by the real parties in interest against the petitioners, their employer. During the litigation, the trial judge made comments suggesting the petitioners were attempting to evade liability through corporate restructuring. These comments were cited by the petitioners as evidence of bias.The Fresno County Superior Court judge struck the petitioners' statement of disqualification as untimely. The petitioners then sought writ review in the Court of Appeal, which held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) precluded the application of the timeliness requirement in section 170.3(c)(1) when a party alleges judicial bias or prejudice. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the nonwaiver provision should be interpreted to prohibit all forms of waiver, including implied waiver due to untimeliness.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeal's interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) applies only to judicial self-disqualification and does not affect the timeliness requirement for party-initiated disqualification attempts under section 170.3(c)(1). The Court emphasized that the statutory text, structure, legislative history, and case law support this interpretation. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for the lower court to determine whether the petitioners' statement of disqualification was filed in a timely manner. View "North Am. Title Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Several contractors and an employee, who regularly handle public works projects for PennDOT and SEPTA, challenged Philadelphia's requirement for project labor agreements (PLAs) on public projects. These PLAs mandated union recognition and membership, and set workforce diversity goals. The plaintiffs argued that these requirements violated their First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They were ineligible to bid on certain city projects due to their existing collective bargaining agreements with the United Steelworkers, which is not affiliated with the required unions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to Philadelphia. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the union-eligibility requirement and failed to show that the diversity requirement caused them harm based on race. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs' § 1981 claim failed because race was not a but-for cause of their inability to work on city projects with PLAs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the union-eligibility requirement under the First Amendment. The court determined that the plaintiffs suffered a concrete and particularized injury by being ineligible to bid on city projects due to the PLAs. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims were not moot despite Philadelphia's subsequent changes to the PLAs, as the plaintiffs sought damages for past violations and prospective relief.The Third Circuit also found that the plaintiffs had standing to raise an Equal Protection claim, as they demonstrated an intent to bid on future projects covered by the PLAs. The court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider the merits of the plaintiffs' First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and § 1981 claims. View "Road-Con Inc v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Jason Lee, an American citizen of Chinese ancestry, was employed by the FBI and held a Top Secret security clearance. After failing three polygraph examinations, the FBI revoked his security clearance and subsequently terminated his employment, as his job required such clearance. Lee contended that the revocation was based on race, national origin, and protected speech, and he brought claims under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and Title VII.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Lee's claims. It held that his Title VII claims were not timely exhausted, that Title VII preempted his Fifth Amendment claims against the Department of Justice (DOJ), and that Lee lacked a cause of action to press constitutional claims for damages against individual DOJ officials. The court also denied Lee's motion for leave to amend his complaint to include additional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), barred judicial review of Lee's statutory and constitutional claims. The court reasoned that the decision to grant or revoke a security clearance is a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment committed by law to the appropriate agency of the Executive Branch. The court also found that Lee's constitutional claims were nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine, as they involved national security matters committed to the political branches and lacked judicially manageable standards for resolution. View "Lee v. Garland" on Justia Law

A union representing over 9,000 pilots employed by an airline alleged that the airline violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by intimidating and disciplining pilots who affiliated with the union. The union claimed that the airline had a history of isolating a special category of pilots known as "check pilots" and "standards check pilots," who are responsible for training and evaluating other pilots. The union alleged that the airline unilaterally established working conditions for check pilots without bargaining and that check pilots were threatened with losing their qualifications if they affiliated with the union. The union also claimed that the airline retaliated against a pilot, Captain Timothy Roebling, by stripping him of his check-pilot qualifications after he joined a union committee.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the union's complaint, concluding that the dispute was subject to arbitration under the RLA and that no exception applied to vest the court with jurisdiction. The district court found that the airline had an arguable basis for its actions under the collective bargaining agreement, making the dispute a "minor" one subject to arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the union had sufficiently pleaded the anti-union animus exception to the RLA's arbitration requirement. The court found that the union's allegations, including threats and retaliatory actions against check pilots, supported the claim that the airline's actions were intended to weaken or destroy the union. The court reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the union's complaint sufficiently alleged anti-union animus to warrant judicial intervention. View "Southwest Airlines Pilots Assn v. Southwest Airlines" on Justia Law

In 2018, Dustin Clover sustained injuries while removing irrigation drip tape from a seed field while working for Crookham Company. Clover filed a complaint against Crookham, alleging that his injuries fell within an exception to the exclusive remedy rule under Idaho’s Worker’s Compensation statutes, which allows for a separate civil action if the employer commits an act of “willful or unprovoked physical aggression.” Crookham moved for summary judgment, arguing that Clover failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Crookham. Clover’s motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading him to appeal.The District Court of the Third Judicial District of Idaho initially reviewed the case. The court found that Clover’s injuries occurred during the course and scope of his employment and were covered by worker’s compensation. It concluded that Clover did not present sufficient evidence to show that Crookham’s actions met the “willful or unprovoked physical aggression” exception to the exclusive remedy rule. The court granted summary judgment to Crookham and denied Clover’s motion for reconsideration, which included new evidence and arguments that were deemed untimely and insufficient to alter the court’s original decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case on appeal. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Clover failed to demonstrate that Crookham engaged in conduct knowing that employee injury would result. The court found no evidence that Crookham consciously disregarded knowledge of a significant risk posed by the drip tape lifter. Additionally, the court upheld the district court’s exclusion of evidence related to subsequent remedial measures and denied Clover’s motion for reconsideration, concluding that the new evidence presented did not raise a genuine issue of material fact. The Supreme Court awarded costs to Crookham as the prevailing party. View "Clover v. Crookham Company" on Justia Law

Terrence Richard, a brakeman for Union Pacific Railroad Company, fell from a train and broke his leg while working. He sued Union Pacific for negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Richard claimed that the locomotive engineer’s mishandling of the train caused a surge that led to his fall. The trial court excluded the testimony of Richard’s expert, Richard Hess, a retired Union Pacific engineer, who would have testified that the engineer’s actions caused the surge. The jury found in favor of Union Pacific, concluding the company was not negligent.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Union Pacific’s motion in limine to exclude Hess’s testimony, reasoning that Hess lacked the necessary qualifications and expertise. Hess had intended to testify that the delay between releasing the train brakes and engaging the throttle caused excessive slack action, leading to a surge at the rear of the train where Richard was working. The trial court’s exclusion of this testimony left Richard without an expert to support his claim of negligent train handling.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in excluding Hess’s testimony. The appellate court found that Hess’s extensive experience as a locomotive engineer qualified him to testify about the train handling practices and the potential dangers of the engineer’s actions. The exclusion of Hess’s testimony was deemed prejudicial because it deprived Richard of critical expert evidence to support his negligence claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment for Union Pacific and remanded the matter for a new trial. View "Richard v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Michael Walden applied multiple times for a manufacturing job with General Electric (GE) but failed the required tests each time. He sued GE for age discrimination and his union for unfair representation in his challenges to GE's hiring decisions. The district court granted summary judgment for GE and the union, and Walden appealed.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted summary judgment in favor of GE and the union. The court found that Walden failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because he did not meet the job qualifications, specifically failing the required tests. Additionally, the court found that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Walden did not qualify for the job as he failed the required tests, and thus could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The court also held that issue preclusion barred Walden's claim against the union for unfair representation, as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had already adjudicated and dismissed his unfair representation charge. The court concluded that Walden had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue before the NLRB, and thus, his section 301 claim under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) failed as a matter of law. View "Walden v. General Electric International" on Justia Law

Eric Gilbert filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing his interest in retirement accounts worth approximately $1.7 million. The issue was whether these accounts could be accessed by creditors due to alleged violations of federal law governing retirement plans. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the accounts were protected from creditors, and the District Court affirmed this decision.The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the trustee John McDonnell's complaint, which sought to include the retirement accounts in the bankruptcy estate, arguing that the accounts violated ERISA and the IRC. The court found that the accounts were excluded from the estate under § 541(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects interests in trusts with enforceable anti-alienation provisions under applicable nonbankruptcy law. The District Court upheld this ruling, agreeing that ERISA's anti-alienation provision applied regardless of the alleged violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the retirement accounts were excluded from the bankruptcy estate under § 541(c)(2) because ERISA's anti-alienation provision was enforceable, even if the accounts did not comply with ERISA and the IRC. The court also dismissed McDonnell's claims regarding preferential transfers and fraudulent conveyances, as the transactions in question did not involve Gilbert parting with his property. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the Bankruptcy Court's decisions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, shorten the time for briefing, and strike certain items from the appellate record. View "In re: Gilbert" on Justia Law