Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

A group of nurses directly employed by the City and County of San Francisco, represented by their union, brought a class action alleging that the City failed to comply with Labor Code section 512.1, which requires public sector healthcare employers to provide meal and rest breaks and pay premiums for missed breaks. The nurses claimed that since the law’s effective date, the City had not provided the required breaks or compensation. The City and the union had previously negotiated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that set out meal and rest break provisions and remedies for missed breaks, but the nurses argued these did not satisfy the new statutory requirements.The Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, sustained the City’s demurrer, agreeing with the City’s argument that section 512.1 did not clearly apply to charter cities like San Francisco. The court did not address the City’s alternative constitutional argument regarding home rule authority. The nurses appealed this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that the statutory language defining “employer” in section 512.1 was ambiguous as to whether it included charter cities and counties such as San Francisco. The court found that neither the statutory text, legislative history, nor legislative findings demonstrated a clear intent by the Legislature to override charter city home rule authority or to apply section 512.1 to charter cities. The court also noted that when the Legislature intends to regulate charter cities, it does so explicitly, which was not the case here. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that section 512.1 does not apply to the City and County of San Francisco. View "Levy v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

After a theft occurred at a licensed marijuana-growing facility in Adelanto, California, the employer, Kavry Management, LLC, required several employees, including Steven McDoniel, to take a polygraph test. McDoniel, who was not advised of his right to refuse the test, took and “failed” two polygraph examinations. He was subsequently terminated from his position, with evidence indicating the termination was due to the polygraph results. McDoniel experienced significant emotional distress and concern for his reputation in the industry following his discharge.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County reviewed McDoniel’s claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, defamation, and violations of Labor Code sections 432.2 and 1198.5. The court granted summary adjudication for the employer on the defamation and PAGA claims, and on punitive damages, but allowed the wrongful termination and Labor Code claims to proceed. At trial, the jury found Kavry liable for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and for violating Labor Code sections 432.2 and 1198.5, awarding McDoniel $100,000 in noneconomic damages. The court also imposed a penalty for the personnel records violation and awarded McDoniel attorney fees under section 432.6.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, held that an employer’s violation of Labor Code section 432.2—requiring or demanding an employee to submit to a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment—supports a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The court affirmed the jury’s award of noneconomic damages. However, it reversed the attorney fee award, finding that section 432.6 did not apply retroactively to McDoniel’s employment, which ended before the statute’s effective date. The court also upheld the denial of attorney fees under the private attorney general statute and found McDoniel forfeited his claim for fees under PAGA. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "McDoniel v. Kavry Management" on Justia Law

An employee of a large retail company alleged that, during her six-week employment at a California store, she was denied meal and rest breaks, not paid for overtime, did not receive proper wage statements, and was required to use her personal cell phone for work without reimbursement. She filed suit in state court, asserting individual, putative class, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims for violations of California’s Labor Code. The company removed the case to federal court.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed several of the plaintiff’s class claims and denied class certification for the remaining class claim. The plaintiff continued to pursue her individual and PAGA claims. Shortly before trial, the parties settled the individual claims for $22,000 under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, with the plaintiff dismissing her PAGA claims without prejudice. The settlement allowed the plaintiff to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for work performed on her individual claims, as permitted by law. The district court awarded the plaintiff $297,799 in attorneys’ fees and $14,630 in costs, after she voluntarily reduced her fee request by nearly half to exclude time spent on class certification and legal assistants’ work.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the section 998 settlement agreement did not preclude the plaintiff from seeking attorneys’ fees for work on related claims under the standard set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, as long as those claims were intertwined with her individual claims. However, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide a clear explanation for the fee award. The court vacated the fee award and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation for any future fee determination. View "Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

A married couple, both employees of UT-Battelle, objected to their employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds, specifically because of their belief that the vaccines’ development involved the use of fetal cell lines from abortions, which conflicted with their Christian faith. UT-Battelle required employees seeking religious exemptions to undergo a panel interview and read a “fact sheet” presenting religious leaders’ support for vaccination. Employees granted religious accommodations were placed on unpaid leave, while those with medical accommodations were not. Mrs. Bilyeu ultimately received a medical exemption before the policy took effect and did not lose pay or work time. Mr. Bilyeu, however, was placed on unpaid leave after exhausting his vacation days, returning to work only after the policy was rescinded.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to UT-Battelle on all claims except Mrs. Bilyeu’s retaliation claim, which was later settled. The court found that Mrs. Bilyeu lacked standing and that Mr. Bilyeu had not suffered a materially adverse employment action under Title VII.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as to Mrs. Bilyeu, holding she lacked Article III standing because she suffered no cognizable injury after receiving her medical accommodation. For Mr. Bilyeu, the Sixth Circuit vacated the summary judgment on his disparate treatment and failure-to-accommodate claims, instructing the district court to reconsider them in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which eliminated the “materially adverse” requirement for adverse employment actions under Title VII. The court reversed the summary judgment on Mr. Bilyeu’s retaliation claim, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the interview process could dissuade a reasonable worker from seeking a religious accommodation, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bilyeu v. UT-Battelle, LLC" on Justia Law

The appellant was injured while inspecting an underground fiber optics project when he slipped and fell into a manhole, sustaining injuries to his right shoulder, left knee, and lower back. Initially, he did not report or seek compensation for a cervical spine (neck) injury. Several weeks later, he sought coverage for cervical spine surgery, claiming the work accident aggravated a preexisting condition. The Division denied coverage, concluding there was no causal relationship between the work accident and the cervical spine injury.After the denial, the appellant requested review, and the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers’ Compensation Division referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for a contested case hearing. The OAH found that the cervical spine injury was not caused by the work accident. The appellant appealed to the District Court of Natrona County, which affirmed the OAH’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the Division erred by referring the case to the OAH instead of the Medical Commission. The Court found that the primary issue—whether the cervical spine injury was caused by the work accident—required the application of medical judgment to complex medical facts and conflicting medical diagnoses. Under Wyoming law, such “medically contested cases” must be referred to the Medical Commission. The Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings before the Medical Commission, holding that the Division was required to refer the matter to the Medical Commission because it involved a medically contested issue. View "Polzer v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division" on Justia Law

A prospective employee applied for a position as an occupational therapist with a rehabilitation company, which required COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment. The applicant requested a religious exemption, submitting a written statement and a supporting letter from a friend citing religious objections to vaccines developed with fetal cell lines. The company questioned the applicant about her vaccination history and, finding her responses insufficiently sincere, denied the exemption and rescinded the job offer. The applicant filed a complaint with the Kansas Department of Labor, which found the company had violated Kansas law by inquiring into the sincerity of her religious beliefs.The company sought judicial review in the Johnson District Court, which reversed the agency’s decision. The district court held that the relevant Kansas statute, which prohibits employers from inquiring into the sincerity of an employee’s religious beliefs when considering COVID-19 vaccine exemptions, was preempted by federal law—specifically, the federal Vaccine Mandate for Medicare and Medicaid providers and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court also found the Kansas statute violated due process because it lacked a rational basis.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the federal Vaccine Mandate and Title VII do not expressly or impliedly preempt the Kansas statute, because federal law permits but does not require employers to inquire into religious sincerity. The court further held that the Kansas law does not violate due process, as it is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting religious liberty and provides adequate procedural protections. The Supreme Court of Kansas reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Powerback Rehabilitation v. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

Two African American truck drivers employed by a large transportation company in Nashville alleged that their supervisors subjected them to a racially hostile work environment. The plaintiffs claimed they were assigned longer routes and more hours than their non-African American colleagues for the same pay, denied certain benefits, and given older or more damaged trucks. They also testified that their supervisors, one of whom was also African American, repeatedly called them “monkey” and “monkey ass,” used demeaning language, and threatened or criticized them in ways not directed at white coworkers. The plaintiffs reported this conduct to company liaisons and managers, but the alleged harassment continued. One plaintiff resigned due to the conditions, while the other was terminated for alleged performance issues, which he disputed.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence of race-based harassment to support a hostile work environment claim. The court reasoned that the terms used by the supervisors were not inherently racist, that the plaintiffs had not shown the terms were used only against African Americans, and that the plaintiffs’ comparative evidence was insufficient because it did not establish the race of the relevant comparators with the required specificity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs’ testimony regarding the use of “monkey” and “monkey ass” by supervisors constituted evidence of race-based harassment, given the well-established history of those terms as racial slurs against African Americans. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ comparative and other evidence was admissible and sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment and the employer’s liability. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Smith v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc." on Justia Law

A worker alleged that he suffered a back injury while employed at a meat processing company. The employer’s workers’ compensation insurer investigated the claim and issued a written denial, stating that the injury was not work-related. The worker requested a hearing to challenge the denial. After this request, the insurer required the worker to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) by a physician of its choosing. The IME report supported the insurer’s denial, concluding that the worker’s preexisting condition, not a work injury, was the major cause of his disability. The worker’s own physician disagreed with the IME’s findings. The worker then requested authorization for a worker requested medical examination (WRME), citing the conflict between the IME and his physician’s opinion.The Workers’ Compensation Division’s Medical Resolution Team denied the WRME request, reasoning that the IME had been conducted after the insurer’s initial written denial. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld both the denial of compensability and the denial of the WRME request, relying on the IME report as persuasive evidence. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ’s decisions. The worker’s estate, after his death, pursued judicial review in the Oregon Court of Appeals, which reversed the Board’s denial of the WRME request and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the insurer’s denial was “based on” the IME report.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the statutory interpretation of ORS 656.325(1)(e). The court held that whether a denial of compensability “is based on” an IME report should be determined at the time the WRME request is decided, not at the time of the initial hearing request. Because the insurer relied on the IME report to defend its ongoing denial, the worker was entitled to a WRME. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, reversed the Workers’ Compensation Board, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Teitelman v. SAIF" on Justia Law

Brandon King worked as a driver for United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) and believed he was hired for a Monday-to-Friday schedule. However, UPS assigned him to a Tuesday-through-Saturday schedule, which included weekend work he sought to avoid through various means, such as maximizing weekday hours, trading shifts, and calling in sick. UPS disciplined him for these actions, including written warnings and supervisor ride-alongs, and fired him multiple times, though the union secured his reinstatement. King alleged that UPS discriminated against him based on race and age, created a hostile work environment, and retaliated against him, claiming that younger, white employees were allowed to avoid Saturday shifts and were disciplined less harshly for similar conduct.King filed suit in Iowa state court under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. UPS removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, arguing that the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) completely preempted King’s state law claims because resolving them would require interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement. The district court denied King’s motion to remand the case to state court and granted UPS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that King’s claims were preempted and that he failed to state a claim under federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed both the refusal to remand and the judgment on the pleadings de novo. The court held that King’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims were substantially dependent on analysis of the collective-bargaining agreement and thus completely preempted by the LMRA, requiring dismissal. The retaliation claim failed because King did not plausibly allege a causal connection between protected activity and adverse employment action. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "King v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

An educator employed by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) was appointed Executive Director of the “AP for All” program, where she supervised a diverse team and was credited with expanding access to Advanced Placement courses. Early in her tenure, she experienced racial tensions with subordinates, including accusations of “microaggressions” and being labeled as exhibiting “white fragility.” These tensions escalated after a new Chancellor implemented an “equity agenda” that included mandatory implicit bias trainings. The plaintiff, who is Caucasian, alleged that these trainings and subsequent workplace interactions fostered a racially hostile environment, with repeated negative generalizations about white employees and a lack of intervention by supervisors when she complained.The plaintiff initially filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York, later amending her complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom that caused her demotion, the alleged hostile work environment, or her constructive discharge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the demotion and constructive discharge claims, holding that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that these actions were motivated by racial discrimination or that the employer intentionally created intolerable working conditions. However, the court vacated the summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, finding that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the DOE’s actions and inaction amounted to a municipal policy or custom that created a racially hostile environment. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "Chislett v. New York City Department of Education" on Justia Law