Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

After the enactment of AB 5 and the filing of Proposition 22 but before the effective date of AB 2257—Plaintiff filed suit against LPL Financial LLC under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). LPL is a registered broker-dealer and registered investment adviser registered with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (‘FINRA’) and the Securities Exchange Commission. Plaintiff and all allegedly aggrieved individuals (the ‘Financial Professionals’) were ‘securities broker-dealers or investment advisers or their agents and representatives that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The parties stipulated that on its face, Labor Code Section 2750.3(i)(2) makes the exemption set forth in Section 2750.3(b)(4) retroactive, such that it would cover the entire proposed PAGA period in this action. However, Plaintiff claimed both of those sections are unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. The parties did not stipulate the results of these two tests—the ABC test versus the Borello test. LPL moved for summary adjudication. The trial court upheld the statute as constitutional.   The Second Appellate District affirmed and held that the challenged provisions are constitutional. The court explained that Plaintiff maintains the registration aspect of the exemption creates a nonsensically narrow classification. The court held that legislation may recognize different categories of people within a larger classification who present varying degrees of risk of harm and properly may limit regulation to those classes for whom the need for regulation is thought to be more important. Further, the court wrote that, unlike the situation with equal protection law, there may be a large divergence between state and federal substantive due process doctrines. View "Quinn v. LPL Financial LLC" on Justia Law

Employer, a temporary staffing company, hired Young as a temporary worker in 2013 and assigned Young to a temporary position at BOW. On Friday, August 16, Young had a telephone altercation with Employer’s representative, who claimed Young was verbally abusive. Young testified the representative “basically” told Young she was “fired” and “implied” the firing was from Employer, rather than the BOW assignment. A contemporaneous internal email characterized the representative's message to Young as being that she was not to return to BOW due to her threatening behavior. Young reported for work at BOW on Monday, August 19. Another Employer representative escorted her out. Young was paid on August 23, for work performed the week of August 12 and on August 30 for work performed on August 19, in accordance with Employer’s regular payroll schedule.Young sued. In 2021—after arbitration of Young’s individual claims and dismissal of her class claims, Young’s only remaining claim was for Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code 2699, PAGA) penalties based on Employer’s alleged failure to timely pay final wages to a discharged employee (Labor Code 201.3(b)(4)). The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment for Employer. Section 201.3(b)(4) applies when a temporary services employer discharges an employee from employment with the temporary services employer, not when that employer terminates an employee from a particular work assignment. Young failed to demonstrate a dispute of fact as to whether she was discharged from work with Employer. View "Young v. RemX Specialty Staffing" on Justia Law

Eberspaecher North America (“ENA”), is a company that manufactures car components with its headquarters in Novi, Michigan and six other locations across the country. An employee at one of these locations—ENA’s Northport, Alabama plant—complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) that he was fired for taking protected absences under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). An EEOC Commissioner charged ENA with discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”), listing only the Northport facility in the written charge. The EEOC then issued requests for information on every employee terminated for attendance-related infractions at each of ENA’s seven domestic facilities around the nation. ENA objected to the scope of those requests. The district court ordered ENA to turn over information related to the Northport, Alabama, facility but refused to enforce the subpoena as to information from other facilities. The EEOC appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion. In the alternative, the EEOC contends that, even if the charge were limited to the Northport facility, nationwide data is still relevant to its investigation.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order enforcing only part of the EEOC’s subpoena. The court explained the EEOC’s investigatory process is a multi-step process designed to notify employers of investigations into potentially unlawful employment practices. The court held that the EEOC charged only ENA’s Northport facility— which provided notice to ENA that the EEOC was investigating potentially unlawful employment practices only at that specific facility—and thus that the nationwide data sought by the EEOC is irrelevant to that charge. View "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Eberspaecher North America Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was let go from her position at Brandstar Studios shortly after her father fell ill. Following her termination, Plaintiff sued Brandstar under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted Brandstar summary judgment. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that Brandstar executives interfered with her rights under the FMLA. Second, she asserted that her termination constituted associational discrimination under the ADA. And finally, she claimed that the district court improperly weighed the evidence on summary judgment rather than construing the facts in her favor.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the parties agreed that Brandstar provided Plaintiff the leave she requested in her May 2 email and that she received full pay for those days. In fact, Plaintiff accidentally clocked in on her two days of requested leave, and Brandstar HR executives circled back weeks later to ensure that she corrected her timecard to reflect her requested leave. Thus, Plaintiff can’t demonstrate that she was harmed by Brandstar’s technical failure to notify her of her FMLA rights. Further, the court found that not only did Plaintiff fail to “request leave” in the May 6 email, but there’s also no indication that Brandstar “acquired knowledge” on its own that she wanted leave for an FMLA-qualifying reason. Moreover, the court found that the only evidence Plaintiff marshaled is the “temporal proximity” between her father’s acute onset decline and her termination—which isn’t enough to show pretext. View "Jessica Graves v. Brandstar Studios, Inc." on Justia Law

David Kutcka, Tammy Dejno, as personal representative of Austin Dejno’s estate, and Tammy Dejno, as wrongful death plaintiff (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appealed the dismissal of their negligence claims against Gateway Building Systems (“Gateway”). Plaintiffs argued the district court erred in concluding Gateway was Kutcka’s and Austin Dejno’s statutory employer entitling Gateway to immunity from suit under the workers’ compensation act. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding that Gateway, the general contractor, was not the statutory employer of its subcontractor’s employees, Kutcka and Dejno, entitling it to immunity under the exclusive remedy provisions of N.D.C.C. § 65-04-28, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kutcka, et al. v. Gateway Building Systems, et al." on Justia Law

In 2013, Kinsella, working for Baker, suffered work-related knee injuries that left him unable to work for three years. He received disability benefits. In 2016, his physician deemed him fit to work in sedentary jobs. Martinez, in human resources, helped him look for appropriate jobs at the company. Kinsella submitted an ADA Reassignment Request. Martinez indicated that Baker had 30 days to look for jobs and that failure to timely find alternative work would result in termination. After that period expired, Martinez suggested Kinsella apply for a dispatcher job. Kinsella failed to apply on time, despite an extension. He applied the next day but did not follow up. A non-disabled employee was hired.Kinsella received a termination letter, citing failure to apply for a position. Kinsella responded, attaching a receipt confirming his application. After investigation, Baker began the process of reinstating Kinsella'a status. Eventually, negotiations broke down.In 2018, Kinsella filed a claim that the EEOC dismissed as untimely. Kinsella sued, alleging failure-to-accommodate, discriminatory discharge, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. An arbitrator granted Baker summary judgment. Kinsella asked the district court to vacate the award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by requiring illegitimate elements of proof. The court reinstated and dismissed the case. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Kinsella misconstrues the arbitrator’s statements concerning a lack of evidence showing discriminatory intent. They were part of attributing fault on both sides for a breakdown in the interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation. View "Kinsella v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC" on Justia Law

Northrop laid off workers in 2012 and did not provide them all with severance benefits. Its Severance Plan provides that a laid-off employee regularly scheduled to work at least 20 hours a week will receive severance benefits if that employee “received a cover memo, signed by a Vice President of Human Resources.” The plaintiffs, who did not receive this “HR Memo,” filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001– 1461.The parties agreed to have a magistrate resolve the case, 28 U.S.C. 636(c). After the suit was certified as a class action, the district judge resumed control at Northrop's request, finding that the increased stakes constituted “good cause” for withdrawing the reference. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment, ruling that the Plan gives the HR Department discretion to choose who gets severance pay.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first finding no abuse of discretion in the withdrawal of the reference order. The Plan makes the receipt of severance benefits contingent on the receipt of an HR Memo, which the class members did not get. Welfare-benefit plans under ERISA—unlike retirement plans—need not provide for vesting, and the terms of welfare-benefit plans are entirely in the control of the entities that establish them. When making design decisions, employers may act in their own interests and may include a discretionary component. Rights under ERISA are not subject to estoppel. The plan itself—not past practice—always controls. View "Carlson v. Northrop Grumman Severance Plan" on Justia Law

After years of what the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) viewed as unsatisfactory teaching performance by a certificated teacher, LAUSD served the teacher with a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and a Statement of Charges, which included notice that the employee was suspended without pay. The teacher brought and prevailed on a motion for immediate reversal of suspension (MIRS) and thus received pay during the pendency of the dismissal proceedings. LAUSD ultimately prevailed in those proceedings. LAUSD then sought a writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court seeking to set aside the order granting the MIRS and to recoup the salary payments it had made to the teacher during the pendency of the proceedings. The trial court denied the writ, holding that the MIRS order is not reviewable. The court also ruled (1) LAUSD cannot recover the payments to the teacher under its cause of action for money had and received and (2) LAUSD’s cause of action for declaratory judgment is derivative of its other claims. The trial court entered judgment against LAUSD in favor of the teacher.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that LAUSD has failed to show that in adding the MIRS procedure, the Legislature intended school districts to be able to recover payments to subsequently dismissed employees. The court wrote that if LAUSD believed such recovery should be permitted through judicial review of MIRS orders or otherwise, it should address the Legislature. View "L.A. Unified School Dist. v. Office of Admin. Hearings" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendants' motion to dismiss the underlying case or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration under section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), holding that Defendants were not entitled to reversal.Plaintiffs, who distributed Defendants' baked goods along routes in Massachusetts, brought this action alleging that Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors and seeking unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and other damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration under the FAA. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiffs fell within the FAA's section 1 exemption from the FAA's purview "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) two of Defendants' arguments were waived; and (2) Defendants were not entitled to relief on the merits of their remaining arguments. View "Canales v. CK Sales Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the continuing validity of the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity, adopted in Knapper v. Connick, 681 So. 2d 944 (1996). This case presented the issue of whether Louisiana law recognized a cause of action for claims asserted against an assistant district attorney (“ADA”), who, during the plea and sentencing phase of a prosecution, misrepresents, either directly or by omission, a victim’s preference as to the sentence to be imposed upon a defendant, and thereafter, attempts to conceal this alleged misconduct. A secondary question concerned whether a cause of action could be maintained against the district attorney (“DA”) who employed the ADA, under a theory of vicarious liability or for employment-related claims. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Knapper and further found that, under the circumstances of this case, both the ADA and the DA were entitled to immunity. The Court thus found that the lower courts erred in overruling the defendants’ peremptory exception of no cause of action. View "Jameson v. Montgomery, et al." on Justia Law