Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Kimminee Costello, an event manager for Thompson Catering & Special Events, traveled to Las Vegas for a work conference. After the conference ended, she had some free time before her flight and decided to shop for souvenirs. While descending stairs at her hotel, she tripped and injured her right ankle, requiring multiple surgeries. Costello filed for workers' compensation benefits, but the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed her claim, finding that her injury occurred during a personal errand, not within the scope of her employment.The ALJ's decision was appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which reversed the ALJ's ruling and remanded the case for further findings on medical benefits and indemnity. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's decision, leading Thompson Catering to appeal to the Supreme Court of Kentucky.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the ALJ misapplied the traveling employee exception to the going and coming rule. The Court determined that Costello's brief shopping trip did not constitute a substantial deviation from her employment. The injury occurred during a period of enforced hiatus while she awaited her return flight, and the deviation was minor and insubstantial. Therefore, the injury was deemed work-related and compensable under Kentucky law. View "THOMPSON CATERING & SPECIAL EVENTS V. COSTELLO" on Justia Law

Blake Wentworth, a former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Information Practices Act (IPA). Wentworth claimed that the Regents failed to engage in the interactive process, provide reasonable accommodations, and invaded his privacy by leaking information about student complaints and his disability accommodations to the media.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary adjudication in favor of the Regents on three of Wentworth’s causes of action under FEHA and IPA, denied his motion to compel discovery responses, and denied his request for a retrial on a cause of action for which the jury left the verdict form blank. The court also denied Wentworth’s post-judgment request for attorney’s fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary adjudication on the claims for failure to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations, finding that the Regents had offered reasonable accommodations and engaged in the interactive process in good faith. However, the court reversed the summary adjudication of the invasion of privacy cause of action, finding that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the Regents violated the IPA by leaking a letter about student complaints and disclosing information about Wentworth’s disability accommodation.The court also reversed the trial court’s denial of Wentworth’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, remanding for further proceedings to determine whether Wentworth was the prevailing party under the IPA and whether he was entitled to fees under the catalyst theory. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Wentworth’s motion for a retrial on the personnel file cause of action, finding that Wentworth had forfeited his right to object to the verdict form by failing to raise the issue before the jury was discharged. View "Wentworth v. UC Regents" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, employees of the State of California providing dental care to inmates, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for time spent on pre- and post-shift safety and security activities. These activities included going through security and handling alarm devices. The defendants, including the State of California and related departments, filed a demurrer, arguing that these activities were not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal.The trial court ruled that the activities in question were not integral and indispensable to the plaintiffs' principal work of providing dental care, thus not compensable under the FLSA. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court improperly decided a factual question and that their claims were viable. The defendants maintained that the trial court's decision was correct and also argued that the plaintiffs' claims were precluded by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing their employment, that the relevant statutes did not apply to government employers, that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust contractual remedies, and that the claims were time-barred.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, concluded that the trial court erred in not accepting the plaintiffs' allegations as true for the purposes of the demurrer. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had stated a claim for breach of contract and that the defendants' affirmative defense of failure to exhaust contractual remedies could not be resolved at the demurrer stage. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' contract claim was not time-barred. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision in part and reversed it in part, allowing the breach of contract claim to proceed. View "Bath v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves a plaintiff, the surviving spouse of a decedent who was employed by the Stamford Police Department. The decedent sustained injuries that led to a significant loss of vision, and he received total incapacity benefits under Connecticut General Statutes § 31-307 (c) due to his permanent and total loss of sight. The plaintiff sought permanent partial disability benefits under § 31-308 (b) after the decedent's death, arguing that his entitlement to these benefits had vested during his lifetime.The administrative law judge denied the plaintiff's claim for permanent partial disability benefits, concluding that although the decedent's condition was permanent, the defendants were entitled to a credit for the total incapacity benefits already paid, which exceeded the amount of the claimed permanency benefits. The Compensation Review Board affirmed this decision, stating that the decedent had not reached maximum medical improvement during his lifetime, a necessary condition for the vesting of permanency benefits under § 31-308 (b).The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Compensation Review Board. The court held that a finding of a permanent injury under § 31-307 (c) does not automatically entitle a claimant to permanency benefits under § 31-308 (b) without a specific finding of maximum medical improvement or an agreement between the parties establishing such a finding. The court concluded that the record did not establish that the decedent had reached maximum medical improvement during his lifetime, and therefore, his entitlement to permanency benefits did not vest before his death. View "Esposito v. Stamford" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an employee, alleged that her employer created a hostile work environment through the actions of her immediate superior, who made racially discriminatory comments. The plaintiff reported these incidents to the employer's human resources department, which conducted an investigation and issued a one-day suspension to the superior. Despite the employer's actions, the plaintiff felt unable to continue working under the superior and transferred to another division.The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities determined that the employer was not vicariously liable for the hostile work environment because the superior did not have the authority to take tangible employment actions against the plaintiff. The trial court upheld this decision, and the Appellate Court affirmed, applying the definition of "supervisor" from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Vance v. Ball State University, which limits the term to those who can take tangible employment actions.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Court's decision. The court held that the Vance definition of "supervisor" applies to claims under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. Since the superior did not have the authority to take tangible employment actions against the plaintiff, the employer could not be held vicariously liable for the creation of a hostile work environment. The court emphasized the importance of consistency with federal law in interpreting state employment discrimination statutes. View "O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities" on Justia Law

Richard Andrew Justice filed a claim against the Georgia Department of Public Safety (DPS) for breach of an employment contract, alleging that DPS failed to pay him for overtime hours as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Justice argued that the FLSA provisions were incorporated into his employment contract. The central issue was whether Justice had demonstrated the existence of a written contract sufficient to overcome DPS’s motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds.The trial court allowed limited discovery and reviewed documents submitted by Justice, including a written offer of employment and subsequent communications. The trial court ultimately granted DPS’s motion to dismiss, finding that the documents did not constitute a valid written contract and that there was no meeting of the minds regarding FLSA overtime compensation provisions. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the documents did form a written contract that included FLSA provisions, thereby waiving sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and determined that Justice had shown the existence of a written contract with DPS, which established a waiver of sovereign immunity under the ex contractu clause of the Georgia Constitution. The Court held that the question of whether the FLSA obligations were part of the written contract was a merits question, not a sovereign immunity question, and thus was not properly before the trial court on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in part, vacated it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. JUSTICE" on Justia Law

Michael Arneson, while working for GR Management, LLC, suffered an electric shock that he claimed caused atrial fibrillation (AFib) and numbness in his right hand. The employer and its insurer paid for initial medical treatment but denied further benefits, arguing the conditions were not caused by the shock. The Department of Labor found the electric shock was a major contributing cause of both conditions and that Arneson was permanently and totally disabled under the odd-lot category.The employer and insurer appealed to the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, which found the electric shock was a major contributing cause of Arneson’s hand condition but not his heart condition. The circuit court also determined that Arneson was not permanently and totally disabled. Arneson appealed, and the employer and insurer filed a notice of review.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case. It affirmed the Department of Labor’s finding that the electric shock was a major contributing cause of Arneson’s heart condition, based on the testimony of Dr. Holloway, who treated Arneson and found the electric shock likely caused the AFib. The court found Dr. Holloway’s testimony more persuasive than that of the employer’s experts, Drs. Brody and Elkins, who attributed the AFib to hyperthyroidism. The court also affirmed the Department’s finding that the electric shock was a major contributing cause of Arneson’s hand condition.Regarding Arneson’s claim of permanent total disability, the Supreme Court found the Department’s determination that Arneson was obviously unemployable was supported by the evidence, including the testimony of vocational expert Tom Audet. The court concluded that the employer and insurer failed to show suitable employment was available for Arneson within his limitations. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s ruling on Arneson’s heart condition and permanent total disability, reinstating the Department’s original order. View "Arneson v. Gr Management, LLC" on Justia Law

In January 2015, Sarah Schoper, a tenure-track assistant professor at Western Illinois University, suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting in high-functioning mild aphasia and other physical disabilities. Despite her condition, she returned to teaching in May 2015, with accommodations from the University. Schoper applied for tenure in 2017 but was denied based on her teaching evaluations, which had declined post-injury. She then filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the University. The court found that Schoper could not prove that her disability was the but-for cause of her negative tenure recommendation. Additionally, the court ruled that Schoper failed to show how her requested accommodation—additional time to meet tenure criteria—would enable her to perform the essential functions of her job.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Schoper was not a qualified individual under the ADA because her teaching evaluations did not meet the University's tenure requirements. The court also found that her request for more time to achieve tenure was not a reasonable accommodation, as it essentially sought a second chance rather than a modification to enable her to perform her job. Furthermore, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Schoper's disability was the but-for cause of the University's decision to deny her tenure, given the multiple layers of review and the lack of evidence showing discriminatory intent by the reviewers. View "Schoper v. Board of Trustees of Western Illinois University" on Justia Law

Two employees of a publicly traded company raised concerns internally that the company had overstated its earnings by not accounting for slower-than-expected drilling speeds. Subsequently, an article in The Wall Street Journal reported similar allegations, and within three months, the company terminated both employees. The employees then filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, claiming their termination violated whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). An administrative proceeding resulted in a preliminary order for their reinstatement, which the company ignored.The employees sought to enforce the reinstatement order in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, interpreting the relevant statute as not granting it the power to enforce the preliminary order. The employees appealed this decision.While the appeal was pending, the employees chose to abandon the administrative process and filed a separate civil action in federal court. Consequently, the administrative proceedings were terminated. The company then moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the employees' request to enforce the preliminary reinstatement order no longer satisfied the redressability requirement for Article III standing. The preliminary order was extinguished with the dismissal of the administrative proceedings, and a federal court cannot enforce a non-existent order. Therefore, the employees lost Article III standing during the litigation, and no exception to mootness applied. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it on mootness grounds. View "Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Laurie DeVore, worked at the University of Kentucky from 1999 to 2022. She retired rather than comply with the University's COVID-19 test-or-vaccinate policy, which she claimed conflicted with her religious beliefs. DeVore filed a lawsuit alleging that the University violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to accommodate her religious beliefs. The University had denied her requests for a hybrid work schedule and religious exemptions from the testing policy, which required unvaccinated employees to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted summary judgment in favor of the University. The court found that DeVore did not establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination because she failed to demonstrate that the University's policy conflicted with her sincerely held religious beliefs. DeVore appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court examined whether DeVore had a sincere religious belief that conflicted with the University's testing policy. DeVore's objections to the nasal PCR tests were initially based on invasiveness, manipulation, and coercion. However, the University offered alternative testing methods, such as oral swab and saliva tests, which DeVore also rejected without providing evidence of a religious conflict with these alternatives.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that DeVore failed to establish a conflict between her religious beliefs and the University's testing policy. The court noted that DeVore's objections were largely based on personal moral codes and secular concerns rather than religious principles. Consequently, DeVore's Title VII claim did not succeed. View "DeVore v. University of Kentucky Board of Trustees" on Justia Law