Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians is a federally recognized tribe in northwestern Wisconsin. In 2013 the Tribe’s Community Health Center hired Mestek as the Director of Health Information. In 2017 the Health Center implemented a new electronic health records system. Mestek soon raised questions about how the new system operated, expressing concern to management that the Center was improperly billing Medicare and Medicaid. An eventual external audit of the Center’s billing practices uncovered several problems. After receiving the audit results in 2018, Bae, the head of the Health Center, called Mestek into her office to ask if she was “loyal.” Mestek answered yes, but persisted in her efforts to uncover billing irregularities. A month later, Mestek learned that she was being fired in a meeting with the Medical Director and the HR Director. Mestek sued the Health Center and six individuals (in both their personal and official capacities) under the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation provision, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h). The district court dismissed.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity precluded Mestek from proceeding; the Health Center is an arm of the Tribe. The individual employee defendants also properly invoked the Tribe’s immunity because Mestek sued them in their official capacities. View "Mestek v. Lac Courte Oreilles Community Health Center" on Justia Law

Bryant, who is African American and has dyslexia, was employed at the Cleveland VA hospital as a sterile processing technician. Bryant alleged disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act; retaliation for participating in Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity; hostile work environment and harassment based on disability; “institutionalized racism”; violation of privacy; non-selection for a position as a painter based on sex and disability; and retaliatory non-selection for the painter position. Bryant moved the district court to appoint counsel, citing her learning disability. The district court denied the motion because the issues were not complex and Bryant had demonstrated sufficient ability to represent herself. The district court dismissed claims 1-5 and 7, finding that Bryant failed to administratively exhaust certain incidents of alleged harassment by a co-worker by omitting them from her EEO charge and that a cited incident was insufficient to create an abusive working environment. The VA’s evidence indicated that the male candidate who was selected for the painter position was disabled himself; his interview score was higher, he displayed greater knowledge of the position's technical requirements, and he had more commercial painting experience. The district court granted the VA summary judgment on the remaining claim.The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Bryant’s allegations, accepted as true, do not plausibly show that her work environment was pervasively discriminatory. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel. View "Bryant v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Zurich American Life Insurance Company of New York∗ (“Zurich”) in district court challenging Zurich’s denial of long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The parties cross-moved for judgment on the record, and the district court awarded judgment to Zurich. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that Zurich’s decision to deny benefits followed a principled reasoning process and was supported by substantial evidence. The court explained that Plaintiff insists that Zurich abused its discretion by failing to evaluate his particular job responsibilities in determining his disability status. The court explained that Plaintiff misunderstands what the Plan requires. The Plan defines “Regular Occupation” as “the occupation [the employee is] routinely performing when [his] disability begins.” And the Plan explains that Zurich “will look at [the employee’s] occupation as it is normally performed in the national economy, instead of how the work tasks are performed for a specific employer or at a specific location.” Of note, Zurich completed and considered a “Physical Requirements and Job Demand Analysis” that evaluated Plaintiff’s job responsibilities. That analysis concluded that his writer/editor position was a sedentary one that required minimal physical exertion. Under the Plan, it was Plaintiff’s burden, not Zurich’s, to provide “written proof of [his] claim for disability benefits.” Thus, Zurich did not abuse its discretion by not obtaining additional vocational evidence, as neither the Plan nor case law affirmatively requires it to have done so. View "Kevin Geiger v. Zurich American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Alessandra Rogers worked for Chaves County in its jail. Several years into her employment, Rogers drafted a petition that criticized treatment of employees in the jail. The petition was signed by 45 current and former jail employees and was submitted to the county commissioners. Roughly a month after the petition was submitted, county employees searched the jail. During the search, employees found illegal drugs and weapons in a bag under Rogers’ desk. Rogers admitted that the bag was hers and that it contained the drugs and weapons. The county put Rogers on paid administrative leave. When the period of administrative leave ended, the county denied Rogers’ request for a promotion and imposed an unpaid five-day suspension. Rogers later quit. Rogers attributed the search to retaliation for her role in drafting the petition, claiming that the retaliation violated the First Amendment. But the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court reasoned that even if the defendants had retaliated for Rogers’ role in drafting the petition, liability wouldn’t exist because the petition hadn’t involved a public concern. The Tenth Circuit concurred with the district court and affirmed. View "Rogers v. Riggs, et al." on Justia Law

Deputy Deeren announced his candidacy for Sheriff of Trempealeau County in 2017. In early 2018, officials within the Sheriff’s Department discovered that Deeren had failed to disclose information about his arrest record when he applied to become a deputy. Deeren had been asked in a 2015 job interview whether he had any prior contact with law enforcement; he failed to disclose that he had been arrested and charged with criminal sexual assault in 2007. After the Department learned of the arrest in 2018, Deeren was again asked about his prior contacts with law enforcement. Deeren again omitted his 2007 arrest and, when confronted, refused to answer questions about it. Then-Sheriff Anderson and Chief Deputy Reinders sought to terminate Deeren for dishonesty and insubordination. Deeren ultimately resigned from the Department and lost the sheriff’s race to Semingson, another deputy in the Department.Deeren filed suit, alleging that Anderson, Reinders, and Semingson engaged in several retaliatory actions against him in response to his candidacy and in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Deeren failed to offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that any defendant engaged in a single act of unconstitutional retaliation. View "Deeren v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Privette doctrine limits a property owner’s potential liability for on-the-job injuries sustained by employees of an independent contractor. An exception to the Privette doctrine’s rule of nonliability in cases where: “(1) [the property owner] knows or reasonably should know of a concealed, pre-existing hazardous condition on its premises; (2) the contractor does not know and could not reasonably ascertain the condition; and (3) the landowner fails to warn the contractor.” Plaintiff-appellant Travis Blaylock argued the trial court erred by failing to recognize there was a triable issue of fact about whether DMP 250 Newport Center, LLC, the owner of the premises on which he was injured, and DMP Management, LLC, the owner’s property manager (collectively DMP) knew or should have known of the allegedly concealed hazardous condition — an access panel in the floor of the crawl space in which he was working—that he fell through. The Court of Appeal found no error: while the evidence submitted by Blaylock might be sufficient to demonstrate DMP should have known the access panel existed, there was no evidence it knew or should have known the panel was either concealed from a person in the crawl space above, or that it was hazardous. View "Blaylock v. DMP 250 Newport Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court in this declaratory judgment suit, holding that a corporate resolution did not authorize the law firm to redeem a departing shareholder's shares on terms unilaterally set by the firm's founders.Under Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code 21.801 , a professional corporation may redeem corporate shares, which are personal property, if one of three conditions is met. After the firm in this case terminated a shareholder's employment the founders purported to redeem his shares at no cost. The trial court concluded that a resolution generally authorizing the founders to take affirmative action on behalf of the firm unambiguously encompassed redemption. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the resolution did not authorize redemption of the departing shareholder's shares on terms dictated by the founders. View "Skeels v. Suder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court granting no-evidence summary-judgment motions in this action alleging that Defendants negligently collected, transported, tested, and reported the results of Plaintiff's hair sample used for a drug and alcohol screening, holding that third-party testing entities hired by an employer do not owe a common-law negligence duty to their clients' employees.Plaintiff, a pipefitter, was directed to report to the Houston Area Safety Council to provide hair and urine samples for drug and alcohol screenings. The Safety Council collected the samples and delivered them to Defendant for laboratory testing. Defendant reported that Plaintiff's hair sample tested positive for cocaine and a cocaine metabolite. Subsequent samples tested positive, but Defendant was required to find work with a different employer. Plaintiff later brought this action. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluding that Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a legal duty. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed after considering the competing factors and well-established tort principles, holding that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant owed him a legal duty under the circumstances of this case. View "Houston Area Safety Council, Inc. v. Mendez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in this wrongful discharge action, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the State but erred in denying the motion to dismiss the claims against the Governor and the Governor's communications director.In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that she was forced out of her employment with the Iowa Department of Public Health because she refused to stifle certain public records requests to the Department. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argued, among other claims, that qualified immunity barred Plaintiff's claims. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly denied Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the claims against the State; but (2) erred in denying Plaintiff's motion to dismiss her claims against the Governor and his communications director for wrongful discharge under Iowa Code 70A.28 and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. View "Carver-Kimm v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The Idaho Industrial Commission issued an order denying Veronica Arreola’s petition for a declaratory ruling and motion for reinstatement of compensation. Arreola brought her petition and motion against the Granite State Insurance Co. (“the Surety”), when the Surety, without an order from the Commission invoked I.C. section 72-434 to suspend Arreola’s compensation payments. In the Surety’s unilateral and private determination, suspending Arreola’s compensation payments was appropriate because the Surety had purportedly scheduled Arreola’s Independent Medical Exam (“IME”) with its physician at a “reasonable” time, and Arreola “unreasonably” failed to submit to or had obstructed the scheduled IME by not appearing. Arreola’s petition and motion disputed these private conclusions by the Surety. Arreola also maintained that only the Commission has the authority to adjudicate the underlying medical exam dispute and determine whether there is a factual basis to execute the enforcement mechanisms in Idaho Code section 72-434. The Commission denied the petition and motion, instructing Arreola to instead proceed through a complaint for relief. The Idaho Supreme Court concluded its decision in Brewer v. La Crosse Health & Rehab, 71 P.3d 458 (2003) interpreting Idaho Code section 72-434 was manifestly wrong. "Only the Commission has the authority to adjudicate medical exam disputes, and to enforce that adjudication through the enforcement mechanisms in section 72-434." In light of this, Arreola’s concern that the Surety’s unilateral execution of the enforcement mechanisms in section 72-434 also suspended her right to file a “complaint” to seek relief was now abated. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did not affirm: given the shift in the legal landscape with Brewer overruled, the Commission’s order denying the petition and motion was vacated, and the case remanded with instructions that the Commission: (1) order payment of prospective compensation payments that might be owed until such time as the Commission determines that payments are not required under section 72-434; (2) reconsider the appropriate procedural mechanism for adjudicating the underlying factual dispute; and (3) instruct the Surety what procedural mechanism it must use to obtain an order authorizing it to lawfully suspend compensation payments. View "Arreola v. Scentsy, Inc." on Justia Law