Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Several pilots were terminated by United Airlines after the company implemented a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. These pilots, represented by their union, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), believed that the union did not do enough to oppose United’s vaccination policies. The pilots had previously filed grievances challenging the mandate, arguing that United’s actions violated the status quo required under the Railway Labor Act because the collective bargaining agreement had expired. ALPA did not support these grievances or file its own, but did file a separate grievance arguing that termination for being unvaccinated was not justified. The pilots’ termination grievances remain pending at their request.After their terminations, the pilots sued ALPA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to adequately oppose United’s vaccine mandate. ALPA moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claim was unripe and failed to state a claim. The district court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of ripeness but granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court also denied the pilots’ request to file an amended complaint, finding that amendment would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the case was ripe because the pilots’ alleged harm—termination—had already occurred. However, the court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the pilots failed to plausibly allege that ALPA’s actions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, as required to state a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation. The court also affirmed the denial of leave to amend, finding that the proposed amended complaint would not cure the deficiencies. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Wickstrom v Air Line Pilots Association, International" on Justia Law

An Arab American faculty member began working at a university as an adjunct instructor and later held a term faculty position. In April 2017, he and another faculty member were informed that their contracts would not be renewed due to budget constraints. Around the same time, the university received a letter from an attorney alleging that the faculty member had engaged in repeated acts of sexual misconduct with a student. The university’s Title IX coordinator initiated an investigation, during which the faculty member admitted to a sexual relationship with the student but claimed it was consensual and began after she was no longer his student. The student did not participate in the investigation, and the coordinator found insufficient evidence of misconduct. The department chair and the faculty member discussed his possible reappointment as an adjunct, but after the student filed a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and other misconduct, the university decided not to hire him as an adjunct, citing low course enrollment, his compensation request, and the lawsuit. A second investigation was launched, and this time the coordinator found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the faculty member had sexually harassed the student. The university then deemed him ineligible for future employment.The faculty member sued the university and two former employees in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, among other claims. The district court dismissed his other claims and granted summary judgment to the university on the § 1981 claim, finding that the university had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and that the faculty member had not shown these reasons were pretext for racial discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that the faculty member failed to present evidence that the university’s stated reasons for its employment decisions were pretext for racial discrimination. View "Saud v DePaul University" on Justia Law

Wayne Gandy, a professional football player, spent 15 years in the NFL, beginning with the Los Angeles Rams in 1994, then the St. Louis Rams, followed by the Pittsburgh Steelers, New Orleans Saints, and finally the Atlanta Falcons until his retirement in 2009. Gandy signed his initial contract in California with the LA Rams, which also covered his time with the STL Rams. Throughout his career, he played a limited number of games and practiced occasionally in California, but the majority of his employment and games were outside the state.After retiring, Gandy filed a workers’ compensation claim in California in 2015, alleging cumulative injuries from his NFL career. The claim named several teams as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that the Falcons provided workers’ compensation coverage under Georgia law, which also covered Gandy’s work in California, and determined both Gandy and the Falcons were exempt from California workers’ compensation law under Labor Code section 3600.5. The WCJ did not address the liability of other teams. Gandy petitioned for reconsideration, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the WCJ’s decision, asserting jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim based on his initial California contract and disregarding the choice of law and forum selection clauses.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the Falcons are exempt from liability under California workers’ compensation law pursuant to Labor Code sections 3600.5(c) and (d), as Gandy did not meet the statutory requirements for coverage: he worked only one season for a California-based team and spent less than 20 percent of his career in California. The WCAB’s decision was annulled, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by a staffing company and assigned to work at a warehousing and logistics firm, performing duties as a materials handler and forklift operator. He filed a class action and a separate representative action alleging various wage and hour violations, including claims for unpaid minimum wages, waiting time penalties, and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The two cases were consolidated. The plaintiff and his direct employer had entered into an arbitration agreement, which referenced the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules but did not explicitly state that the arbitrator would decide issues of arbitrability.The defendants moved in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims, dismiss class allegations, and stay judicial proceedings. They argued that the arbitration agreement was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that the AAA rules incorporated into the agreement delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. The plaintiff opposed, asserting exemption from the FAA as a transportation worker and arguing that certain claims, including those under PAGA and for unpaid wages, were not arbitrable under California law. The trial court found the FAA did not apply, applied California law, and held that the agreement did not clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court compelled arbitration of some claims but allowed others, including minimum wage and PAGA claims, to proceed in court.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that, in the context of a mandatory employment arbitration agreement, mere incorporation of AAA rules without explicit language in the agreement is not clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court also held that claims for waiting time penalties based on minimum wage violations and all PAGA claims were not arbitrable under California law when the FAA does not apply. View "Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of more than 80 former at-will employees of a nonprofit healthcare system in Washington were terminated after refusing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination mandate issued by their employer, which was in response to an August 2021 proclamation by the state’s governor requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated. The employees alleged that, at the time, only an “investigational” vaccine authorized for emergency use was available, and they claimed their rights were violated when they were penalized for refusing it. They also argued they were not adequately informed of their right to refuse the vaccine.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington first dismissed all claims against the governor, then dismissed the federal claims against the healthcare system, and denied the employees’ motions for leave to amend and reconsideration. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against the healthcare system.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that none of the employees’ statutory or non-constitutional claims, which were based on various federal statutes, regulations, agreements, and international treaties, alleged specific and definite rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court also found that the employees’ constitutional claims failed: the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim was foreclosed by Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho; the procedural due process claim failed because at-will employment is not a constitutionally protected property interest; and the equal protection claim failed because the mandate survived rational-basis review. The court further held that amendment of the federal claims would be futile and upheld the district court’s dismissal of the state law claims against the governor and its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the healthcare system. View "Curtis v. Inslee" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an hourly licensed attorney document reviewer, worked for a legal document review company with offices in Minnesota. In 2019, the company changed its overtime policy, eliminating premium overtime pay and stating that employees would be paid only their base rate for all hours worked. In 2020, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, alleging that the company failed to pay required overtime wages, in violation of the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act (MPWA), the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA), and the Minnesota Wage Theft Act (MWTA). The company subsequently paid the plaintiff and other affected employees all claimed overtime wages and liquidated damages, but the parties disagreed about the availability of statutory penalties.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims. The court did not address whether the employer had violated the statutes, as the parties had stipulated that the only remaining dispute concerned penalties. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that he was entitled to statutory penalties and injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court held that only the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, not individual employees, may seek average daily wage penalties under the MPWA. Regarding the MFLSA claim, the court found that, because the plaintiff had received all owed wages and liquidated damages, and because penalties are payable to the Commissioner, there was a question of mootness and standing. The court vacated the summary judgment on the MFLSA claim and remanded for the district court to determine its jurisdiction. The court affirmed the dismissal of the MWTA claim and the denial of injunctive relief, finding no statutory basis for penalties and that the request for injunctive relief was not properly before the court. View "Cohen v. Consilio, LLC" on Justia Law

Three former employees of a large convenience store chain alleged that they were denied the opportunity to apply for a promotion to West Coast regional director because of their age. All three had strong performance records and had expressed interest in advancement. When the position became available in early 2020, the company did not announce the vacancy or solicit applications, as it had done in the past. Instead, it selected a younger candidate, who had previously served as a regional director in another area, without giving the plaintiffs a chance to apply. At the time, the plaintiffs were in their mid-50s, while the selected candidate was 45.After the plaintiffs filed suit in California state court, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because they had not applied for the position. The court also found that, even if a prima facie case existed, the employer had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, and the plaintiffs had not shown that this reason was pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that, when an employer does not announce a vacancy or solicit applications, plaintiffs are not required to show that they applied for the position to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The court also clarified that, although a ten-year age difference is the usual threshold for a “substantial” age gap, plaintiffs can overcome a smaller gap by providing evidence that age was a significant factor in the employer’s decision. The court found that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of pretext and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "CALDRONE V. CIRCLE K STORES INC." on Justia Law

An employee suffered a back injury while working as a loader and material handler, which required him to lift heavy objects. After the injury, he received medical treatment and was placed on a weight restriction but continued working for the same employer at a slightly higher wage. Later, he voluntarily left that job for personal reasons and obtained new employment at higher wages. The employee eventually filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, and medical evaluations determined he had a permanent impairment to his back.A deputy workers’ compensation commissioner found that the employee had an 8% functional impairment and, applying the “industrial method,” determined the employee had a 15% loss of earning capacity, awarding permanent partial disability benefits accordingly. The workers’ compensation commissioner affirmed this decision. The employer and its insurance carrier sought judicial review, arguing that the benefits should have been calculated based on functional impairment rather than loss of earning capacity. The Iowa District Court for Polk County denied the petition for judicial review, agreeing with the commissioner’s use of the industrial method. On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the industrial method was appropriate and that substantial evidence supported the finding of a 15% loss of earning capacity.The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed the case and held that, under Iowa Code section 85.34(2)(v), when an employee with a nonscheduled injury returns to work or is offered work at the same or greater earnings as at the time of injury, compensation must be based solely on the employee’s functional impairment, not on loss of earning capacity. The court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded the case for calculation of benefits based on functional impairment. View "Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former employee, brought a lawsuit against his employer alleging multiple claims of discrimination and harassment. The employer successfully moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the parties. During the arbitration, the arbitration provider issued an invoice for fees, which the employer attempted to pay electronically on the last day of the statutory 30-day deadline. However, due to a processing delay, the payment was not received by the provider until three days after the deadline.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found that the employer’s failure to ensure the arbitration fees were received within the 30-day period constituted a material breach of the arbitration agreement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. The court vacated its prior order compelling arbitration, returned the case to court, and awarded the plaintiff $1,750 in sanctions for expenses incurred in bringing the motion. The plaintiff then sought over $300,000 in attorney fees and costs under section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1), which allows recovery of all fees and costs associated with an abandoned arbitration. The trial court granted only a reduced amount, reasoning that the plaintiff was entitled only to fees and costs for work rendered useless by the termination of arbitration.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, considered the impact of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310. Hohenshelt held that federal law preempts a strict application of section 1281.98, and that forfeiture of arbitral rights occurs only if the failure to pay fees is willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent. The appellate court determined that the employer’s late payment was not willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1). The order awarding attorney fees and costs was reversed. View "Wilson v. Tap Worldwide, LLC" on Justia Law

Jay Gould served as CEO of Interface, Inc., a carpet manufacturer. After an incident at an annual sales meeting in which Gould allegedly became intoxicated and verbally abused an employee, Interface’s board of directors terminated his employment for cause. This followed a prior warning and an investigation by King & Spalding LLP, which corroborated the allegations. Under Gould’s employment agreement, termination for cause resulted in significantly reduced compensation compared to termination without cause.Gould filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging breach of contract and arguing that Interface’s determination of cause was made in bad faith. Interface moved for summary judgment, asserting that the contract gave it absolute discretion to determine cause, or, alternatively, that it had acted in good faith. Gould’s arguments in the district court focused on the company’s alleged lack of good faith, contending that the investigation was a sham. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Interface, finding both that the company had absolute discretion and, alternatively, that Gould had not shown bad faith. The district court adopted this recommendation and denied Gould’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, ruling that Gould had waived a new argument that Interface had no discretion to determine cause.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Gould advanced the new theory that Interface had no discretion to determine cause under the contract. The Eleventh Circuit held that this theory was a new issue, not a subsidiary argument, and that Gould had forfeited it by failing to raise it in the district court. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that Gould’s remaining claims did not warrant reversal. View "Gould v. Interface, Inc." on Justia Law