Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Jesse Keidel appealed a district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision denying Keidel permanent partial impairment (PPI) benefits. In May 1996, Keidel suffered a work-related injury to the meniscus of his left knee. Keidel had surgery in December 1996. In October 1997, Keidel underwent a second surgery to his left knee, a high tibial osteotomy. The doctor performing an independent medical evaluation in May 1998 opined that Keidel’s left knee condition was a “combination of his significant preexisting left knee degenerative joint disease and the work-related permanent aggravation.” Following a permanent impairment evaluation, WSI denied Keidel a PPI award because Keidel’s 15% whole body impairment was below the statutory 16% threshold for an impairment award. In January 2019, Keidel had left total knee replacement surgery. In June 2020, Keidel underwent a second permanent impairment evaluation. The evaluating doctor, Dr. Redington, determined Keidel had a 24% whole person impairment for the left total knee replacement. "Giving [Keidel] the benefit of the doubt, I will apportion 50% of the impairment rating of the left knee to pre-existing conditions." In November 2020, WSI denied an impairment award for Keidel’s left knee because his overall impairment rating after apportionment after the second evaluation was 12%, which was below the 14% threshold for an impairment award under then current version of N.D.C.C. § 65-05-12.2. At a hearing, Keidel argued the apportionment of his left knee impairment due to preexisting arthritis was litigated and decided in a 2000 hearing. Keidel argued administrative res judicata prohibited WSI from litigating whether his permanent impairment could be apportioned to a preexisting condition. The ALJ and district court concluded administrative res judicata did not apply. Finding no error in that judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Keidel v. WSI, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted writs of prohibition and mandamus ordering Judge John P. O'Donnell of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to stop exercising jurisdiction over the underlying case and to dismiss the underlying case, holding that the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation was entitled to the writs.The City of Cleveland and the City of Parma sued the Bureau in separate actions. The Supreme Court held that the court of claims had exclusive jurisdiction over Cleveland's action. Judge O'Donnell then dismissed Parma's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thereafter, Parma filed the underlying lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment. Judge O'Donnell denied the Bureau's motion to dismiss. Parma also filed an action against the Bureau in the court of claims, which dismissed the complaint on limitations grounds. The Bureau then brought this action against Judge O'Donnell, arguing that the common pleas court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over the underlying case. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding that the Court of Claims Act, Ohio Rev. Code 2743.01 et seq., patently and unambiguously divested the common pleas court of jurisdiction. View "State ex rel. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law

The appeal raised the question of whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a state rule that discriminates against the formation of an arbitration agreement, even if that agreement is ultimately enforceable.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiffs, a collection of trade associations and business groups (collectively, the Chamber of Commerce); the panel held that the FAA preempted AB 51, which was enacted to protect employees from “forced arbitration” by making it a criminal offense for an employer to require an existing employee or an applicant for employment to consent to arbitrate specified claims as a condition of employment. The panel held that AB 51’s penalty-based scheme to inhibit arbitration agreements before they are formed violates the “equal-treatment principle” inherent in the FAA and is the type of device or formula evincing hostility towards arbitration that the FAA was enacted to overcome. Because the FAA’s purpose is to further Congress’s policy of encouraging arbitration, and AB 51 stands as an obstacle to that purpose, AB 51 was therefore preempted. Because all provisions of AB 51 work together to burden the formation of arbitration agreements, the panel rejected California’s argument that the court could sever Section 433 of the California Labor Code under the severability clause in Section 432.6(i) and then uphold the balance of AB 51. View "CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE US, ET AL V. ROB BONTA, ET AL" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Defendants' motion to dismiss this case arising from a labor dispute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that Plaintiff's constitutional rights were not violated by the designation of his union as the exclusive bargaining representative for all employees within Plaintiff's bargaining unit.At issue was whether a public employee's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association are infringed when a public employer authorizes a union to serve as the exclusive representative in collective bargaining for employees within that employee's designated bargaining unit. Plaintiff, a law professor, brought this lawsuit against, inter alia, the union that represented his bargaining unit, arguing that Defendants infringed his First Amendment rights by making the union his exclusive representative in negations regarding certain pay cuts. The district court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Plaintiff's contention that his constitutional rights were infringed by the designation of the union as the exclusive bargaining representative for all employees within Plaintiff's bargaining unit. View "Peltz-Steele v. Umass Faculty Federation" on Justia Law

In 2018, Mwande Serge Kpiele-Poda ("Employee") was injured at a wellsite while repairing a conveyor that activated and crushed his legs. While Employee's Workers' Compensation claim was still pending, he filed a petition asserting negligence and products liability against his employers, two wellsite operators, and the manufacturers and distributors of the conveyor. Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. was named in the body of the petition but omitted from the caption. After the statute of limitations period expired, Employee amended his petition to add Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. as a defendant in the petition's caption. A second amended petition added other parties. Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. moved to dismiss arguing the claim was time-barred because the amended petition did not relate back to the first petition. Employee's employers also moved to dismiss arguing the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act and Oklahoma precedent precluded employees from simultaneously maintaining an action before the Workers' Compensation Commission and in the district court. The district court granted each dismissal motion and certified each order as appealable. The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained and consolidated Employee's separate appeals, holding: (1) the district court erred when it dismissed Employee's action against Ovintiv Mid-Continent, Inc. as time-barred; and (2) the district court properly dismissed Employee's intentional tort action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Kpiele-Poda v. Patterson-UTI Energy, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order of the superior court granting Stephen Witham's motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal and dismissed Witham's appeal as untimely, holding that Witham's notice of appeal was untimely.At issue was the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy adopting a hearing officer's recommended decision to revoke Witham's certificate of eligibility as a law enforcement officer. The superior court affirmed the decision. Witham filed a notice of appeal together with a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The court granted Witham's motion for an extension. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order and dismissed Witham's appeal as untimely, holding that the lower court erred in granting Witham's motion for an extension under the circumstances. View "Witham v. Bd. of Trustees of Me. Criminal Justice Academy" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the Department of Civil Service's (DCS) unilateral implementation of application fees for promotional and transitional civil service exams was not a term and condition of employment, as defined in N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 201(4), and therefore, the State had no obligation to negotiate those fees under the Taylor Law, N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 200 et seq.The State offers the subject exams to provide qualified State employees an opportunity to seek other public employment. For at least ten years, DCS waived the application fees for employees represented by Respondents to take the exams. In 2009, DCS began assessing fees for the exams but did not collectively bargain with Respondents regarding the imposition of the fees prior to taking the action at issue. Respondents filed improper practices charges with the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that by unilaterally imposing the fees the State violated Civil Service Law 209-a(1). PERB determined that the subject was mandatorily negotiable and that the State's past practice of not charging such fees was enforceable. The Appellate Division dismissed the State's ensuing petition seeking to annul PERB's determinations. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that PERB's determination conflicted with Civil Service Law 201(4) and this Court's precedent. View "State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Before the parties arrived at the 2016 labor agreement at issue, the Company’s benefit plan offered bargaining-unit employees a tax-advantaged defined contribution plan under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(k)—a “401(k)” for short. When the Company upgraded its retirement-benefit offering in 2018, the Union brought the unfair labor practice charge at issue here. The Union claimed that the Company unilaterally modified the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by “implementing a 401(k) contribution matching structure other than that specifically negotiated and memorialized in the CBA [Collective Bargaining Agreement].” The parties dispute which of the two documents—with different 401(k) terms—reflects their final and binding agreement   The Company asserted, and the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) determined that the binding agreement is September 16, 2016, Memorandum of Agreement, as a hand signed by Company and Union bargaining representatives. The Union asserts that a different contract document, as typed up and circulated to the parties almost a year later, is the one that binds. 
The DC Circuit denied the Union’s petition for review. The court held that here the parol evidence of the parties' bargaining history allowed the Board to identify the Memorandum of Agreement as the final product of the parties’ negotiations and to conclude that the 401(k) term in the 2017 revised version of the Collective Bargaining Agreement contained an unenforceable unilateral mistake. View "District 4, Communications Workers of America (CWA), AFL-CIO v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), promulgated regulations (5 U.S.C. 5545(d) and 5343(c)(4)), to provide hazardous duty and environmental differential pay to federal employees. Current and former employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons filed suit, alleging that they were entitled to hazardous duty and environmental differential pay due to their “work [with] or in close proximity to objects, surfaces, and/or individuals infected with COVID-19 without sufficient protective devices.”The Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court’s dismissal of their claims for hazardous duty and environmental differential pay (plus related overtime, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs). For the plaintiffs to prevail, it is not enough that COVID-19 can readily be characterized as “unusual”—one of the requirements of the statutory provisions; their case depends on whether their allegations come within OPM’s existing regulations, which are not challenged and which delimit particular situations in which federal employees are entitled to hazardous duty and environmental differential payments. OPM has not addressed contagious-disease transmission outside certain situations within laboratories and jungle-work situations. Although OPM might be able to provide for differential pay based on COVID-19 in various workplace settings, it has not to date adopted regulations that do so. View "Adams v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant brought suit against Defendant-Appellee the City of Salem, Virginia, alleging that Salem failed to promote her based on her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Bandy sought a booking-coordinator position at the Salem Civic Center (the Center), but Salem passed her up and instead hired a significantly younger candidate. Following discovery, Salem moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the finding that no reasonable jury could find that Salem did not promote Plaintiff because of her age. The court explained that Plaintiff asserted that her employer preferred to hire “young men” and “stacked” the interview committee against her by excluding human resources representatives. These assertions amount to little more than speculation. Human resources remained involved in the hiring process and screened every applicant to ensure that they were minimally qualified. Moreover, Plaintiff was not even among the top three candidates for the position, and one of the candidates ranked ahead of her was, in fact, a woman older than her. Crucially, the evidence demonstrated that the interview committee hired the other employee over Plaintiff for a number of legitimate reasons: his job experience, particularly in promotion and marketing; higher education in sports, communication, and executive leadership; sales background; enthusiasm; and preparation. View "Tammy Bandy v. City of Salem, Virginia" on Justia Law