Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed an appeal from the National Labor Relations Board ("Board") involving Renew Home Health ("Renew"), a company that provides in-home nursing services. The Board had previously determined that Renew had violated the National Labor Relations Act ("Act") by: creating an unlawful oral workplace rule, threatening employees for exercising protected activity, interrogating employees about their concerted activities, and unlawfully terminating an employee named Ann Bornschlegl.Renew contested these findings, maintaining that its Registered Nurse Case Managers are supervisors exempt from the Act, and thus not subject to these violations. However, the court found that Renew had failed to satisfy its burden of proof, noting that the Registered Nurses primarily served in reportorial roles and did not have the authority to independently hire, terminate, or discipline other employees.Further, the court upheld the Board's finding that Renew had conducted coercive investigations and unlawfully terminated Bornschlegl. However, it disagreed with the Board's conclusions that Renew had instituted an impermissible oral workplace rule and had unlawfully threatened Bornschlegl. Therefore, the court partially granted Renew’s petition and partially granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Renew Home Health v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case concerns a dispute involving the Producers Service Corporation (PSC), an oilfield services company, and several of its current and former employees. The employees alleged that PSC failed to pay them a lawful overtime premium for all hours worked over forty per week. PSC argued that it paid its employees in accordance with a Belo plan, a statutory exception to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that allows employers to pay a fixed salary to employees who work fluctuating hours. The district court found that PSC could not establish one of the prerequisites to a valid Belo plan because its employees worked irregular schedules not by necessity, but due to factors within PSC’s control, and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the employees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding that PSC presented evidence creating a genuine dispute of fact as to the reason behind the employees' irregular schedules. Not all irregular schedules were due to scheduled time off, and PSC provided a plausible explanation for the weeks that employees worked fewer than forty hours despite taking no time off: swings in demand for its services. As such, the matter was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings. View "Jones v. Producers Service Corp." on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the plaintiff, Candice Martin, represented herself and the estate of her deceased husband, Rodney Martin. The defendants were Goodrich Corporation and PolyOne Corporation, both of which Rodney had worked for. Rodney had been exposed to a hazardous chemical, vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), during his employment and was later diagnosed with angiosarcoma of the liver, a disease allegedly linked to VCM exposure.The case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Illinois Workers' Occupational Diseases Act (ODA), which provides compensation for employees who contract diseases through their employment. The Act also has an exclusivity provision, which restricts employees from seeking compensation outside of the statutory scheme.The plaintiff argued that her claim was not subject to the ODA's exclusivity provisions due to an exception introduced by the Illinois legislature in 2019, which allows claims to proceed outside the ODA if they would be barred by any period of repose or repose provision. The defendants argued that this exception did not apply in this case, as Rodney's exposure to VCM had occurred decades prior to the enactment of the exception.Due to the complexity of the statutory provisions and the implications of their interpretation, the Court of Appeals decided to certify three questions to the Illinois Supreme Court. The questions pertained to whether a specific provision of the ODA constituted a period of repose, whether the 2019 exception applied retrospectively, and whether the application of this exception to past conduct would violate the due process protections of the Illinois Constitution. View "Martin v. Goodrich Corporation" on Justia Law

This case concerns an employment discrimination action filed by Alyssa Jones against her former employer, Riot Hospitality Group and its owner-operator Ryan Hibbert. During discovery, Riot Hospitality Group discovered that Jones had deleted text messages exchanged with her coworkers and had also coordinated with witnesses to delete messages. In response, the District Court for the District of Arizona ordered Jones and other parties to hand over their phones for forensic analysis.However, Jones and her attorney failed to comply with multiple court orders to produce the relevant messages. Subsequently, Riot Hospitality Group filed a motion for terminating sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2), citing intentional spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI) by Jones.The court found ample evidence that Jones intentionally deleted relevant text messages and collaborated with witnesses to do the same. It concluded that Jones' actions impaired Riot Hospitality Group's ability to proceed with the trial and interfered with the rightful decision of the case. The court therefore dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 37(e)(2) due to intentional spoliation of ESI by the plaintiff.The court's decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the case or the district court's consideration of an expert report on the deletion of ESI.The appellate court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Jones and others to hand over their phones for forensic search, and in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Riot Hospitality Group. View "JONES V. RIOT HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC, ET AL" on Justia Law

The case being summarized involves two subclasses of current and former tipped employees at two New York City restaurants, who filed suit against the restaurants and their owners for violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Prior to the trial, the parties agreed to present only the NYLL claims to the jury. The defendants appealed the partial final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ NYLL claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that because the plaintiffs’ federal claims were never formally dismissed, and the partial final judgment did not contain a disposition as to the federal claims, the matter had to be remanded to the district court. The purpose of the remand was to allow the district court to clarify the record as to the status of the FLSA claims. The court concluded that the lack of clarity concerning the FLSA claims impaired its ability to review the defendants’ challenges, leading to questions about the validity of the district court’s judgment certifying the appeal. The mandate was issued forthwith, with jurisdiction restored to the panel without the need for a new notice of appeal if, within thirty days, either party informed the court by letter that the district court had supplemented the record to clarify the status of the FLSA claims. View "Zivkovic v. Laura Christy LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a worker's compensation claim by appellant, Loretta Dillon, against the Industrial Commission of Ohio and others. Dillon had received temporary-total-disability (TTD) compensation for a work-related back injury, which was subsequently reversed on appeal after it was determined that she had reached maximum medical improvement and was no longer temporarily disabled. As a result, R.C. 4123.511(K) required the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to recoup the overpayment of compensation that Dillon had received after she had reached maximum medical improvement.Dillon appealed this determination to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the commission to vacate the order that declared an overpayment of TTD compensation and to issue a new order dissolving the overpayment. The court of appeals denied the writ, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court held that the plain language of R.C. 4123.511(K) required the bureau to recoup the overpayment of TTD compensation payments that Dillon received after she reached maximum medical improvement from any future benefits she might receive. It further overruled a previous case, State ex rel. Russell v. Indus. Comm, which Dillon relied on for her argument that recoupment was not warranted, stating that the reasoning in that case ran counter to the plain language of R.C. 4123.511(K) and R.C. 4123.56(A). View "State ex rel. Dillon v. Indus. Comm." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Fallon Community Health Plan, Inc., adopted a policy requiring its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The defendant, Shanika Jefferson, a home health aide employed by Fallon, sought a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement. Her request was denied, and her employment was terminated. Jefferson then applied for and was approved for unemployment benefits from the Department of Unemployment Assistance. However, Fallon contended that Jefferson was ineligible for the benefits and sought review of the decision. The board of review of the department, as well as a District Court judge, affirmed the decision.Fallon argued that Jefferson was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits as per § 25 (e) (2) of General Laws c. 151A because she refused the COVID-19 vaccine in knowing violation of Fallon's reasonable policy and in wilful disregard of Fallon's interest in keeping its vulnerable patient population healthy. However, the Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with Fallon's contention. The court held that Jefferson did not engage in "deliberate misconduct", but rather made a good faith effort to comply with Fallon's policy by applying for a religious exemption. The court also found that Fallon failed to demonstrate that Jefferson should be disqualified on the basis of a "knowing violation" of that policy. The court considered the unique circumstances of the case, including Jefferson's sincere religious beliefs, which did not present her with a meaningful choice regarding vaccination. Therefore, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts, allowing Jefferson to receive unemployment benefits. View "Fallon Community Health Plan, Inc. v. Acting Director of the Department of Unemployment Assistance" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiffs, Honeyfund.com Inc, Chevara Orrin, Whitespace Consulting LLC, and Primo Tampa LLC, challenged a Florida law known as the Individual Freedom Act. This law bans certain mandatory workplace trainings that espouse or promote a set of beliefs related to race, color, sex, or national origin deemed offensive by the state. The plaintiffs asserted that the Act violated their rights to free speech and was both vague and overbroad. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, with the understanding that the Act was both unconstitutionally vague and an unlawful content- and viewpoint-based speech restriction. Florida appealed this decision.The appellate court held that the Act was indeed a violation of the First Amendment. The court rejected Florida's argument that the Act regulated conduct, not speech, noting that the Act's restrictions were based on the content and viewpoint of the speech in the prohibited meetings. The court applied strict scrutiny, determining that the Act was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. It also rejected Florida’s attempt to tie the Act to Title VII, a federal law prohibiting employment discrimination, stating that having similar asserted purposes did not make the two laws equivalent. The plaintiffs' claim of irreparable injury due to an ongoing violation of the First Amendment was also acknowledged. The court thus affirmed the district court's order preliminarily enjoining the operation of the provision. View "Honeyfund.Com Inc v. Governor, State of Florida" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed a decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regarding unfair labor practices alleged against New Concepts for Living, Inc. New Concepts sought review of an NLRB order determining that it engaged in unfair labor practices by pushing to decertify its employees' union. The NLRB affirmed the administrative law judge's dismissal of three charges against New Concepts but reversed his dismissal of five others.New Concepts, a nonprofit corporation providing services for people with disabilities, had been in a stalemate with its employees' union after the most recent collective bargaining agreement expired. Due to the union's inactivity, many employees expressed dissatisfaction and began a decertification movement. During this period, New Concepts suspended bargaining and issued memorandums to its employees about their right to resign from the union and stop the deduction of union dues. The NLRB found that these actions, as well as New Concepts' conduct during collective bargaining negotiations and a poll to assess union support, constituted unfair labor practices.The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that the NLRB's determinations were not supported by substantial evidence. The court found that New Concepts had both contractual and extracontractual bases for distributing the memorandums, did not unlawfully track employee responses, and provided adequate assurances against reprisals. Additionally, the court determined that New Concepts did not engage in bad faith bargaining and that its poll and subsequent withdrawal of recognition from the union were lawful. The court thus granted New Concepts' petition for review and denied the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement. View "New Concepts for Living Inc v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The case involved Sha’Lisa Lewis, a former correctional officer at the Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina, who contested her termination from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) during her probationary period. Lewis contended that she did not receive notification of her termination until after her probationary term had ended. She argued that she was denied due process protections, such as a proposed removal action and a reasonable opportunity to respond.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examined the issue, focusing on the interpretation of 5 C.F.R. § 315.804, which mandates that an agency notify an employee in writing about the reasons for termination and the effective date. The court ruled that while the agency must notify the employee, the regulation does not necessitate the employee's actual receipt of the notice before the end of the probationary period. The court held that termination is effective if the agency does all that could be reasonably expected under the circumstances to deliver the notice before the end of the probationary period.In Lewis's case, the court concluded that BOP had made reasonable efforts to notify her of her termination before the end of her probationary period. Thus, the court affirmed that Lewis was effectively terminated as a probationary-period employee. View "LEWIS v. BOP " on Justia Law