Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff brought an action against The Gap, Inc. and its directors “derivatively on behalf of Gap.” Plaintiff’s action alleged that Gap violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-9 by making false or misleading statements to shareholders about its commitment to diversity. Gap’s bylaws contain a forum-selection clause stating that the Delaware Court of Chancery “shall be the sole and exclusive forum for . . . any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Corporation.” Lee nevertheless brought her putative derivative action in a California district court. The district court granted Gap’s motion to dismiss Lee’s complaint on forum nonconveniens ground.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The en banc court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that her right to bring a derivative Section 14(a) action is stymied by Gap’s forum-selection clause, which alone amounts to Gap “waiving compliance with a provision of [the Exchange Act] or of any rule or regulation thereunder.” The en banc court explained that the Supreme Court made clear in Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987), that Section 29(a) forbids only the waiver of substantive obligations imposed by the Exchange Act, not the waiver of a particular procedure for enforcing such duties. McMahon also disposes of Plaintiff’s argument that Gap’s forum-selection clause is void under Section 29(a) because it waives compliance with Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act, which gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over Section 14(a) claims. View "NOELLE LEE V. ROBERT FISHER, ET AL" on Justia Law

Glacier delivers concrete using trucks with rotating drums that prevent the concrete from hardening. After a collective-bargaining agreement between Glacier and the Union for its drivers expired, the Union called for a work stoppage on a morning it knew the company was mixing substantial amounts of concrete, loading batches into trucks, and making deliveries. The Union directed drivers to ignore Glacier’s instructions to finish deliveries in progress. Several drivers who had already left for deliveries returned with loaded trucks. By initiating emergency maneuvers to offload the concrete, Glacier prevented significant damage to its trucks. All the concrete mixed that day became useless.Glacier sued the Union, alleging common-law conversion and trespass to chattels. The Union argued that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 157, protected the drivers’ conduct. The Washington Supreme Court agreed that the NLRA preempted Glacier’s tort claims.The Supreme Court reversed. The NLRA protects the right to strike but that right is not absolute; it does not shield strikers who fail to take “reasonable precautions” to protect their employer’s property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work. The risk of harm to Glacier’s trucks and concrete was foreseeable and serious; the Union executed the strike in a manner designed to achieve those results. Given the lifespan of wet concrete, Glacier could not batch it until a truck was ready to take it. By reporting for duty and pretending that they would deliver the concrete, the drivers prompted the creation of the perishable product and waited to walk off the job until the concrete was in the trucks. View "Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his former employer, the Georgia Department of Public Safety (“Department”). Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to make out a prima facie case of Title VII race discrimination regarding (1) the Department’s investigation of an incident stemming from his alleged intoxication at work and (2) the Department’s failure to promote him to corporal while he was on administrative leave. Plaintiff also raised a separate evidentiary argument, alleging that the district court erred in refusing to admit a document he alleges is from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the investigation claim for different reasons than those relied upon by the district court. Further, the court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the document allegedly from the EEOC. The court wrote that Plaintiff has forfeited any arguments as to the district court’s findings that the purported EEOC document was inadmissible because it contained ultimate legal conclusions and an unsupported expert opinion because he did not challenge either of these grounds in his opening brief. Further, no extraordinary circumstances apply to warrant consideration because a refusal to consider the issue would not result in a miscarriage of justice, the issue is not one of substantial justice, the proper resolution is not beyond any doubt, and the issue does not present significant questions of general impact or of great public concern. View "Clyde Anthony v. Georgia Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed from April 2018 to August 2019 by Defendant EmployBridge, LLC, which does business in California as Select Staffing. In March 2018, as part of her employment application, Plaintiff electronically signed an arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement (1) states it “is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act,” and (2) contains a broad agreement to arbitrate claims. Plaintiff sued EmployBridge Holding Company, a Delaware corporation, solely to recover civil penalties under PAGA for Labor Code violations suffered by her or by other employees. The trial court determined that the agreement to arbitrate specifically excluded PAGA claims. This appeal challenges the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of claims to recover civil penalties.   The Fifth Appellate District affirmed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that the trial court correctly interpreted the agreement’s carve-out provision stating that “claims under PAGA … are not arbitrable under this Agreement.” This provision is not ambiguous. It is not objectively reasonable to interpret the phrase “claims under PAGA” to include some PAGA claims while excluding others. Thus, the carve-out provision excludes all the PAGA claims from the agreement to arbitrate. View "Duran v. EmployBridge Holding Co." on Justia Law

The Secretary of Labor cited and fined Chewy, Inc., for inadequately protecting its warehouse employees from “under-rides,” a kind of forklift accident. The Secretary found that no specific standard covered the under-ride hazard and that Chewy had a general duty to protect its workers from that hazard. An administrative law judge upheld the citation and ruled that the standard Chewy cited, 29 C.F.R. Section 1910.178, did not cover the under-ride hazard.   The Eleventh Circuit granted Chewy’s petition for review, set aside the Commission’s order, and vacated the citation. The court held that Chewy complied with the safety standard that specifically addresses under-rides. Accordingly, the Secretary cannot cite Chewy for failing to protect its workers from that hazard. The court explained that the Secretary’s distinction between a standard that prevents the under-ride hazard and a standard that addresses the hazards that arise in the event of an under-ride, if accepted and extended to other cases, would upend the regulatory scheme. Further, the court wrote that the administrative law judge’s interpretation of section 1910.5(f ) is also unreasonable because it requires that compliance with the specific standard eliminate the hazard for preemption to occur. View "Chewy, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

In 2018, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) hired Bronson as a treatment center teacher. Bronson was assigned to Lurie Hospital. Bronson and another teacher assigned to Lurie (Cooper), are Black; the third teacher, Lee, is White. Lurie’s family services director, Ruohonen, was the teachers’ “representative supervisor” at Lurie. Ruohonen is White. Bronson alleges that Lurie and Ruohonen treated Bronson and Cooper, the first Black teachers assigned to Lurie, in a discriminatory manner. In a departure from consistent past practice, Lurie denied Bronson and Cooper access to Lurie's electronic medical records system, EPIC, for a year. Identification badges issued to Bronson and Cooper bore a different color than those issued to others: Lee’s badge granted her “regular employee access” to EPIC. In 2019, Ruohonen sent an email to their CPS supervisor, complaining about Bronson and Cooper. Bronson contacted the Chicago Teachers Union, which responded that the complaint was inconsistent with the union contract, Bronson also alleges that she and Cooper were denied adequate office and desk space.In December 2019, Bronson filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, then filed suit, asserting violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims. Because the allegations in Bronson’s complaint establish that Lurie is not her de facto employer, she cannot sue Lurie under Title VII. View "Bronson v. Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) denying Workers' Compensation Division benefits for treatment to Appellant's upper back, neck, and arms, holding that the OAH's determination was supported by the evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.Eight days after she twisted her back at work Appellant was in a motorcycle accident. The Division concluded that Appellant had suffered a compensable injury to her lumbar spine but denied payments for treatments for cervical spine, carpal tunnel syndrome, and cervical disc degeneration because those conditions were not related to Appellant's work injury. After a contested case hearing, the OAH upheld the decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the OAH's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. View "Vandom v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the district court denying Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc.'s motion to vacate an arbitration award in favor of AFSCME Minnesota Council 5, holding that the court of appeals erroneously substituted its own judgment for that of the arbitrator.Hennepin Healthcare and AFSCME, which represented two bargaining units of Hennepin Healthcare employees, arbitrated a dispute regarding Hennepin Healthcare's use of temporary staffing agency workers. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of AFSCME. The district court confirmed the award. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that because the arbitration award did not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement it must be vacated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Hennepin Healthcare failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the arbitrator clearly exceeded the powers granted to him in the CBA because the award failed the essence test. View "Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. v. AFSCME Minnesota Council 5, Union" on Justia Law

Alaska, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA), a public sector union representing thousands of State employees, including union members and nonmembers, deducted union members’ dues from their paychecks and deducted from nonmembers’ paychecks a mandatory “agency fee” and transmitted the funds to ASEA. In June 2018 the United States Supreme Court held in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31 (Janus) that charging union agency fees to nonmember public employees violated their First Amendment rights by “compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.” The State and ASEA modified their collective bargaining agreement to comply with Janus, and the State halted collecting agency fees from nonmembers. In 2019, after a change in executive branch administrations following the November 2018 election, the State took the position that Janus also required the State to take steps to protect union member employees’ First Amendment rights. The State contended that Janus required it to obtain union members’ clear and affirmative consent to union dues deductions, or else they too might be compelled to fund objectionable speech on issues of substantial public concern. The governor issued an administrative order directing the State to bypass ASEA and deal directly with individual union members to determine whether they wanted their dues deductions to continue and to immediately cease collecting dues upon request. Some union members expressed a desire to leave the union and requested to stop dues deductions; the State ceased collecting their union dues. The State then sued ASEA, seeking declaratory judgment that Janus compelled the State’s actions. ASEA countersued seeking to enjoin the State’s actions and recover damages for breach of the collective bargaining agreement and violations of several statutes. The superior court ruled in favor of ASEA, and the State appealed. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s declaratory judgment in favor of ASEA because neither Janus nor the First Amendment required the State to alter the union member dues deduction practices set out in the collective bargaining agreement. And because the State’s actions were not compelled by Janus or the First Amendment, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s rulings that the State breached the collective bargaining agreement and violated relevant statutes. View "Alaska, et al. v. Alaska St. Emp. Ass'n, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in this employment discrimination suit ruling that an arbitration agreement was unconscionable and affirming the order of the trial court denying the employer's motion to compel arbitration, holding that the court of appeals erred in ruling that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.After Petitioner terminated Respondent's employment Respondent sued for race discrimination and retaliation under federal and state law. Petitioner moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement signed by Respondent when he was hired. Respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the agreement was unconscionable. The trial court denied the motion to compel, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the agreement was unconscionable. View "Houston AN USA, LLC v. Shattenkirk" on Justia Law