Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

At Weatherford’s fracking operations, Hammons directed Ayres to drive a truck outside of his driving certification; Ayres refused, telling his district manager, Crabb, that employees were being asked to drive in violation of Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. At a subsequent employee meeting, Crabb said that anyone who complained to HR would be fired. Ayres spoke by phone with a regional HR manager. Subsequently, Ayers was taken off the schedule and eventually fired, due to a “Reduction in Force.” When Ayres applied for unemployment benefits, Weatherford claimed he had been discharged because he “failed to follow instructions.” The district court dismissed Ayres’s suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ayres did not appeal.Ayres had also filed a Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) complaint. Ayres died; his estate’s administrator was substituted as the complainant. An ALJ found that: Ayres had engaged in STAA-protected activity; Weatherford knew about the protected activity; the protected activity contributed to Ayres’s discharge; and Weatherford failed to present clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions absent Ayres’s protected activities. The ALJ awarded Ayres $82,119 in back pay, $10,000 for emotional harm, $25,000 in punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The Board and the Sixth Circuit upheld the decision in part, vacating the award of punitive damages. Penal claims, including the STAA right to punitive damages, abate upon the death of the injured party. View "Weatherford U.S., L.P. v. United States Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a deaf man who can understand only about 30% of verbal communication through lipreading. He communicates primarily through American Sign Language (ASL). Plaintiff worked for O’Reilly Auto Parts (O’Reilly) as an inbound materials handler. He claims that the company discriminated against him in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because it did not provide him with the reasonable accommodations that he requested for his disability. He alleged that he requested but did not receive an ASL interpreter for various meetings, training, and a company picnic. He also alleged that he asked for text messages summarizing nightly pre-shift meetings but did not receive them either. The district court, acting by consent through a magistrate judge, granted O’Reilly’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA claim.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of O’Reilly. The court remanded for further proceedings involving Plaintiff’s claim that O’Reilly violated the ADA by failing to provide him with reasonable accommodations regarding the nightly pre-shift safety meetings and regarding his disciplinary proceedings involving attendance issues. The court concluded that genuine issues of material fact do exist about whether two of Plaintiff’s requested accommodations relate to his essential job functions and whether the failure to provide those two accommodations led to an “adverse employment decision.” If Plaintiff’s allegations turn out to be the actual facts, there was a violation of Title I of the ADA, and that means summary judgment against him was inappropriate. View "Teddy Beasley v. O'Reilly Auto Parts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court accepted certification of a state law question submitted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and answered that the holding in Galbreath v. Golden Sunlight Mines, Inc., 890 P.2d 382 (Mont. 1995), has not been superseded by the 1999 statutory amendments to Mont. Code Ann. 39-2-801.At issue was whether, in an action for wrongful discharge pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 39-2-904, an employer may defend an employee's termination solely for reasons given in a discharge letter, as held in Galbreath, or whether the 1999 statutory amendments, which allowed employers to use reasons other than the reason provided in the discharge letter to defend against a wrongful discharge action, superseded the Galbreath Rule. The Supreme Court answered in the negative, holding that the Galbreath Rule was not superseded by the 1999 statutory amendments. View "Smith v. Charter Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 lawsuit against Defendants—each present or former employees of the California Department of Public Health—on the grounds that Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive Plaintiffs of certain rights secured by the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged a “stigma-plus” due process claim under Section 1983 on the grounds that Defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard before publishing a purportedly erroneous investigative report on an unsuccessful cardiac surgery. They contend that the publication of this report caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of protected employment-related interests. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish several necessary elements of their claim and, thus, dismissed the action in its entirety; Plaintiffs challenged each of the district court’s negative elemental findings.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that the district court’s negative causation finding was plausible in light of record evidence establishing; the timing and conclusions of the hospital’s internal investigations, the independent actions of a hospital employee to alert the family to potential malfeasance by Plaintiff, the family and estate’s pursuit of legal action; the accounts of key percipient witnesses to the surgery as part of the malpractice case; and the sizable malpractice judgment awarded against Plaintiff. The panel thus sustained the district court’s determination that Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants’ conduct was the actionable cause of the claimed injury and concluded that, at a minimum, Plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite causation element of their “stigma-plus” due process claim under Section 1983. View "PERVAIZ CHAUDHRY, ET AL V. TOMAS ARAGON, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that this dispute over an exempt class employee's termination was not arbitrable, thus reversing the order of the appellate division and denying a petition to compel arbitration, and that the Town of Monroe was free to terminate the employee without cause.In 2012, the Town appointed Employee to an exempt class civil service position. Three years later, the Town entered a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a Union that defined the bargaining unit to include Employee's position, permitted the Town to "terminate employees for just cause," and supplied procedures culminating in binding arbitration. In 2017, the Town terminated Employee, and the Union filed a grievance. When the Town refused to address the grievance the Union brought this action to compel the Town to arbitrate the dispute. Supreme Court denied the Town's motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the underlying dispute was not arbitrable because granting the relief sought would violate a statute, decisional law, and public policy. View "Teamsters Local 445 v. Town of Monroe" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that tier three police officers in the New York City Police Pension Fund (PPF) who might otherwise be eligible for retirement credit under certain statutory provisions may not use those provisions to apply prior non-police service toward their retirement eligibility.Plaintiff commenced an action seeking a declaration that the City of New York and other related parties (collectively, the City) violated sections of the Retirement and Social Security Law and the New York City Administrative Code by refusing to permit tier three officers to obtain credit toward retirement eligibility for prior non-police service. The appellate division concluded that the City was statutorily required to allow tier three officers to credit non-police service toward their retirement eligibility. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and dismissed the proceeding, holding that the plain language of N.Y. Ret. & Soc. Sec. Law 513(c)(2) limits eligible prior service for those officers to police service. View "Lynch v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is the former Vice President of Program and Community of the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation. She received largely positive feedback during her tenure, but less than two years after she was hired, the CEO of the Foundation fired her for purported interpersonal and communication-related issues. Plaintiff, who is African-American, believes these stated reasons were pretext to mask discriminatory animus. Plaintiff and the Foundation signed a severance agreement, under which Plaintiff agreed to release employment-related claims against the Foundation and its employees, and which contained a mutual non-disparagement clause. But roughly a month after Plaintiff was fired, the CEO told another leader in the non-profit space that Plaintiff was let go because she was “toxic,” created a “negative environment.” Plaintiff sued the Foundation and its CEO for breaching the severance agreement, for doing so in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and for defaming her. The district court dismissed all three claims.   The DC Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing all three claims. As to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, the non-disparagement clause could reasonably be interpreted to preclude the Foundation from disparaging Plaintiff, and dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is therefore inappropriate. As to her Section 1981 claim, the court found that she has plausibly alleged a prima facie case that the Foundation, through the CEO, breached the severance agreement due to racial animus. And lastly, the CEO’s statements are not protected by the common interest privilege, which requires a showing of good faith on the part of the speaker. View "Terri Wright v. Eugene & Agnes E. Meyer Foundation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a report of unlawful activities made to an employer or agency that already knew about the violation is a protected "disclosure" within the meaning of Cal. Labor Code 1102.5(b).Employer fired Employee after Employee complained about unpaid wages she was owed, threatened to report her to immigration authorities, and told her never to return to the establishment. The Labor Commissioner sued Employer for violations of section 1102.5, but the trial court ruled against Labor Commissioner on the claim because Employee reported her complaints to Employer rather than a government agency. The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Employee made a disclosure protected by section 1102.5(b). View "People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla's, Inc." on Justia Law

In this labor dispute, Petitioner, the employer, filed a statement of disqualification seeking to remove the trial judge based on comments made during oral argument. However, Petitioner waited one year after the judge's comments to file the statement. The trial court determined that Petitioner waived the right to file a statement of disqualification.Finding the order striking Petitioner's statement of disqualification was flawed in several respects, the Fifth Appellate District vacated the trial court's order and provided the judge three days from the date the statement of disqualification is reinstated to respond before being deemed to have consented to disqualification by operation of time. View "North American Title Company v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Consolidated appeals stemmed from an employment dispute between Dr. Margot G. Potter and her former employer, Women's Care Specialists, P.C. ("Women's Care"), and out of a dispute between Potter and three Women's Care employees: Dr. Karla Kennedy, Dr. Elizabeth Barron, and Beth Ann Dorsett ("the WC employees"). In case no. CV-21-903797, Potter alleged claims of defamation, tortious interference with a business relationship, and breach of contract against Women's Care. In case no. CV-21-903798, Potter alleged claims of defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship against the WC employees. After the trial court consolidated the cases, Women's Care and the WC employees filed motions to compel arbitration on the basis that Potter's claims were within the scope of the arbitration provision in Potter's employment agreement with Women's Care and that the arbitration provision governed their disputes even though Potter was no longer a Women's Care employee. The trial court entered an order denying those motions. Women's Care and the WC employees separately appealed; the Alabama Supreme Court consolidated the appeals. In appeal no. SC-2022-0706, the Supreme Court held that Potter's breach of-contract claim and her tort claims against Women's Care were subject to arbitration. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's order denying Women's Care's motion to compel arbitration. In appeal no. SC-2022-0707, the Supreme Court held that Potter's tort claims against the WC employees were subject to arbitration. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration, and remanded both cases for further proceedings. View "Women's Care Specialists, P.C. v. Potter" on Justia Law