Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code 2698 et seq., that are "premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by" Plaintiff maintains statutory standing to pursue PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees in court.The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that the trial court properly found, among other things, that PAGA claims are not subject to arbitration, holding (1) to have PAGA standing, a plaintiff must be an "aggrieved employee" - i.e., one who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed; and (2) when a plaintiff brings a PAGA action composed of both individual and non-individual claims, "an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing to proceed as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA." View "Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

Eligibility for disability payments from the Fund turns on how many credits an ironworker has accumulated (a credit is equal to 1,000 hours of work on union jobs in a given year); those with more than five but fewer than 15 credits are entitled to disability benefits if “totally and permanently disabled as the result of an accident sustained while on the job and employed by a Contributing Employer.” Lane, with nine credits as a union ironworker, applied for disability benefits. Lane was approved for Social Security Disability Insurance. The Fund’s Administrator requested information to connect Lane’s disability to an on-the-job injury. Lane explained that he suffered on-the-job injuries to his shoulder and knee and sent medical records, none of which connected his disability to the cited May 2014 accident. Lane admitted that his SSA award was determined by a combination of factors, not just the 2014 accident. A letter from Lane’s physician referred to several work-related injuries without identifying the work-related events or whether those injuries were the sole basis for the SSA’s disability award.After review by the Medical Review Institute of America concluded that the records did not establish that the SSA disability related to the 2014 accident, the Fund’s Trustees affirmed the denial of Lane’s Claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Fund under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1002, characterizing the denial as “not downright unreasonable.” View "Lane v. Structural Iron Workers Local No. 1 Pension Trust Fund" on Justia Law

Plaintiff argues that former Broward County Public Defender Howard Finkelstein fired her from her position as a public defender in violation of her First Amendment rights. Finkelstein fired Plaintiff after she made public comments during her campaign to replace Finkelstein, who was not seeking reelection. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed on a political podcast that Finkelstein played golf rather than work, did not hire racial minorities or support black social justice organizations, and had used illegal drugs while practicing law earlier in his career. Based on these comments, Finkelstein terminated Plaintiff's employment after the primary election, which Plaintiff had lost to another employee of the office. The district court granted summary judgment to Finkelstein. It concluded that many of Plaintiff’s statements about Finkelstein were eligible for First Amendment protection because they were made on matters of public concern. But, balancing Plaintiff’s interests against her employer’s interests, the district court concluded that her interest in making these statements did not outweigh the government’s interest in the effective management of the public defender’s office.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Plaintiff’s termination cannot support a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The court wrote that it is yet to consider whether and how a public employee’s political campaign to replace her supervisor impacts her interest in criticizing that supervisor. Although the court recognized that an employee seeking public office has a strong interest in criticizing the elected official currently holding that position, the court believes the employer’s interest in effective management outweighs the employee’s interest when the employee’s criticisms are likely to frustrate the employer’s mission. View "Ruby Green v. Howard Finkelstein, et al" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that there was not substantial record evidence to support the determination of the presiding human rights referee's determination of intentional discrimination in this action challenging an employment termination decision, holding that the appellate court erred.The referee determined that the Hartford Police Department had discriminated against Hoa Phan, a probationary police officer on the basis of his Vietnamese and Asian ancestry by terminating his employment. The trial court affirmed. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the trial court erred in finding that substantial evidence supported the referee's finding of intentional discrimination. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the referee correctly determined that Phan had established his prima facie case; and (2) the appellate court's alternative holding that substantial evidence did not support the referee's finding of intentional discrimination was erroneous. View "Hartford Police Dep't v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities" on Justia Law

Defendant Alki David Productions, Inc. (ADP) appealed from the judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff after a jury found ADP liable for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 232.5, which prohibits an employer from discharging an employee who discloses information about the employer’s working conditions, and section 1102.5, subdivisions (b) and (c), which prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who refuses to participate in an activity that would violate the law or who discloses information the employee reasonably believes would disclose a violation of the law. The jury awarded Plaintiff $7,068,717 in damages (consisting of $368,717 in economic damages, $700,000 in non-economic damages, and $6 million in punitive damages). The jury further found that ADP terminated Plaintiff’s employment with malice, oppression, or fraud. The trial court denied ADP’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that the record contains substantial evidence of multiple other municipal code violations in the correction notice issued by a city inspector on September 25, 2017. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Plaintiff’s continued work at the theater would have violated the law, and the trial court’s finding in this regard was not legally erroneous. Further, substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Plaintiff’s disclosure was a substantial motivating reason for his termination. View "Zirpel v. Alki David Productions, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Plaintiff and declaring that the City of Woonsocket improperly terminated Plaintiff's employment with the Woonsocket Police Department in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws 42-28.6-4 of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBOR), holding that there was no error.The order appealed from declared that the city's termination of Plaintiff's employment was unlawful in violation of section 42-28.6-4 of the LEOBOR and that the City must comply with LEOBOR's procedural requirements if it wished to terminate Plaintiff's employment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice properly determined that the City improperly terminated Plaintiff's employment and improperly deprived him of the requisite notice and hearing. View "Sosa v. City of Woonsocket" on Justia Law

Fitzgerald worked for Roncalli Catholic High School as a guidance counselor and Co-Director of Guidance for 14 years and earned years of stellar performance reviews. In 2018, the school declined to renew her one-year employment agreement, explaining that her same-sex marriage was contrary to the Catholic faith. Fitzgerald was placed on administrative leave. Her Co-director of Guidance, Starkey, informed Roncalli that she too was in a same-sex marriage. The school did not renew Starkey’s employment agreement. Fitzgerald and Starkey brought separate lawsuits, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII.In both cases, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The school fired Fitzgerald because of her same-sex marriage and Title VII prohibits this kind of sex discrimination, but the Supreme Court has held that employment discrimination suits are barred “when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the group’s ministers.” Fitzgerald played a crucial role on the Administrative Council, which was responsible for at least some of Roncalli’s daily ministry, education, and operations and “helped develop the criteria used to evaluate guidance counselors, which included religious components like assisting students in faith formation and attending church services.” Fitzgerald held herself out as a minister. View "Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2018, Anaheim voters approved a Living Wage Ordinance (LWO). The LWO applied to hospitality employers in the Anaheim or Disneyland Resort areas that benefited from a “City Subsidy.” In 2019, Kathleen Grace and other plaintiffs (“Employees”) filed a class action complaint against the Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, U.S., Inc. (“Disney”) and Sodexo, Inc., and Sodexomagic, LLC (“Sodexo”) alleging a violation of the LWO (Sodexo operated restaurants in Disney’s theme parks). Disney moved for summary judgment and Sodexo joined. It was undisputed the Employees were not being paid the required minimum hourly wage under the LWO. However, Disney argued it was not covered under the LWO as a matter of law because it was not benefitting from a “City Subsidy.” The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal disagreed: “A ‘City Subsidy’ is any agreement with the city pursuant to which a person other than the city has a right to receive a rebate of transient occupancy tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, property tax or other taxes, presently or in the future, matured or unmatured.” The Court determined that through a "reimbursement agreement," Disney had the right to a rebate on transient occupancy taxes (paid by hotel guests), sales taxes (paid by consumers), and property taxes (paid by Disney), in any years when the City’s tax revenues were sufficient to meet certain bond obligations. Consequently, the Court found Disney received a “City Subsidy” within the meaning of the LWO and was therefore obligated to pay its employees the designated minimum wages. View "Grace v. The Walt Disney Company" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court concluding that an appeals officer erred in denying benefits to the widow and child of an employee who died while on a work trip, holding that there is no requirement that an employee's activities be foreseeable to his employer in order for the employee to recover workers' compensation benefits.Jason Buma died when he traveled from Nevada to Texas for a work conference and had an accident one evening while riding an ATV around a ranch owned by his coworker. Plaintiffs, Buma's wife and child, requested workers' compensation benefits, but the request was denied. An appeals officer upheld the denial. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the appeals officer failed to apply the traveling employee rule. On remand, the appeals officer again denied benefits on the grounds that there was no evidence in the record that Jason's employer could have foreseen that Jason would be riding ATVs. The district court granted Plaintiffs' petition for judicial review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appeals officer misinterpreted this Court's decision in Buma I and that this Court did not impose a requirement that an employee's activities need be foreseeable to his employer in order for the employee to recover workers' compensation benefits. View "Providence Corp. Development v. Buma" on Justia Law

Three installers of window blinds sued FS Blinds, L.L.C., the company for which they worked. The district court granted summary judgment to FS Blinds, determining that Plaintiffs had not met their prima facie burden to show they worked overtime. The court dismissed the case, and Plaintiffs appealed.   The Fifth Circuit reversed. The court held that Plaintiffs have met the lenient standard under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686–88 (1946), and therefore survive summary judgment, at least as to whether, if employees, Plaintiffs worked overtime. The court declined to reach whether Plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors and instead remand for the district court to consider that question anew. The court explained that, based on the record, Plaintiffs have presented enough to satisfy their “lenient” prima facie burden under Mt. Clemens. This is so even though Plaintiffs’ testimony offers only an estimated average of hours worked. In addition to their testimony, though, Plaintiffs offered supporting work orders and some corroborating testimony from FS Blinds. The court wrote that all told, this record evidence hurdles Plaintiffs’ Mt. Clemens burden. View "Flores v. FS Blinds" on Justia Law