Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

A woman applied for a mailroom position with a security company that provided services at an automobile manufacturing plant. The company had a grooming policy prohibiting certain hairstyles, including locs. During her interview, concerns about her hairstyle were raised, but she was hired after showing a picture of her hair styled in an "updo." She began work with her locs, but was sent home because of her hair. After subsequent discussions and expressing concerns about discrimination, she was ultimately not allowed to return to work. She filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), naming individuals involved, and later received a right-to-sue letter for one of her charges, but maintains she never received the letter for the other.She filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, alleging race and pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against several defendants. The district court dismissed disparate-impact claims and all Title VII claims against one defendant, then granted summary judgment on all claims against two defendants, and on all but one retaliation claim against the security company. That retaliation claim went to a jury, which awarded substantial damages. The district court denied the security company’s motion to strike her jury demand, finding no knowing and intentional waiver of her right to a jury trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissals and summary judgment for two defendants and on the race discrimination claim against the security company. However, it held that the district court erred by presuming timely receipt of the right-to-sue letter at summary judgment and by failing to properly instruct the jury on the protected activity element of retaliation. The court vacated the judgment against the security company and remanded for a new trial on the remaining claims. View "Key v. Dynamic Security, Inc." on Justia Law

After a workplace injury, an employee developed a disability that prevented him from performing his previous physically demanding job as a pest control technician. He repeatedly requested reassignment to a less demanding “light-duty” position, providing medical documentation and engaging with his employer about his limitations and desire to return to work. Despite these requests, the employer neither responded substantively nor engaged in discussions about available light-duty positions. Over sixteen months, the employee remained on unpaid leave and ultimately resigned after the employer filled several suitable positions without contacting him.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on both claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court found that the employee could not perform the essential functions of his original position with a reasonable accommodation and concluded that placing him on indefinite unpaid leave constituted a reasonable accommodation. It also determined that the unlawful termination claim failed because the employee had voluntarily resigned.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the employer was obligated to reassign the employee to a light-duty position and whether it failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. The court clarified that the ADA requires consideration of whether an employee can perform the essential functions of the desired position, not just the original one, and that indefinite unpaid leave is not a reasonable accommodation when reassignment is possible. However, the court affirmed dismissal of the unlawful termination claim because the employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies on that claim. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the summary judgment on the failure to accommodate claim, but affirmed summary judgment on the unlawful termination claim. View "Dieng v. Orkin, LLC" on Justia Law

Custodians employed by a school district were represented by a union and worked under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that provided for extra pay—specifically, one and a half times their salary in addition to their regular pay—when schools were closed due to emergencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, after a state of emergency was declared and schools were closed to students, the Board initially paid custodians 250% of their regular salary for in-person work. However, following an amendment to N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-9(e)(1), the Board adjusted compensation, ceasing the additional 150% pay and instead paid custodians as if schools were “open,” in line with the statute’s direction.The unions filed grievances alleging violations of the CBA regarding the cessation of extra pay. An arbitrator found in favor of the custodians, concluding the schools were “closed” within the meaning of the CBA and that the extra compensation should continue. The Chancery Division confirmed the arbitration award, determining the arbitrator’s decision was “reasonably debatable.” The Appellate Division reversed, finding the statutory language clear and holding the custodians should be compensated as if schools were “open,” not “closed,” thus vacating the arbitration award for custodial employees.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case. It held that the arbitrator’s decision was directly contrary to the plain and express mandate of N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-9(e)(1), which requires compensation under the CBA “as if the school facilities remained open for any purpose.” The Court found the arbitrator’s award was not “reasonably debatable” and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision to vacate the arbitration award for custodial employees. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "East Orange Educational Support Professionals' Association v. East Orange Board of Education" on Justia Law

An employee of High Performance Alloys, Inc. died while working at the company’s facility. The deceased employee’s estate sued the company for wrongful death, alleging gross negligence, willful and wanton conduct, disregard of safety regulations, and actual intent to cause injury. The complaint referenced prior safety violations, knowledge of hazardous conditions, failure to implement available safety measures, and a claim that the employer acted with actual intent to cause injury.The estate’s lawsuit was pending in Indiana state court. High Performance Alloys sought coverage under its Worker’s Compensation and Employers’ Liability Insurance Policy issued by Insurance Company of the West. ICW denied coverage, asserting the claims were excluded by the policy. ICW then filed a federal declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, seeking a determination that it had no duty to defend or indemnify High Performance Alloys. High Performance Alloys counterclaimed for coverage. The district court granted judgment in favor of ICW, holding that the claims were either barred by Indiana’s Workers’ Compensation Act or excluded by the Policy’s intentional acts exclusion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the estate’s allegations, even if true, either described an accidental injury governed exclusively by Indiana’s Workers’ Compensation Act or an intentional injury excluded from coverage by the policy. The court found the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to plead an intentional tort under Indiana law and denied a request to certify questions to the Indiana Supreme Court. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Insurance Company of the West has no duty to defend High Performance Alloys in the underlying lawsuit. View "Insurance Company of the West v High Performance Alloys, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff worked as a court reporter in Rusk County, Wisconsin, initially for Judge Henderson and later for Judge Anderson. She alleged that over several years, she experienced a hostile work environment based on her sex, including inappropriate comments and conduct mainly from Judge Anderson and his judicial assistant. She also claimed her employer failed to accommodate her disability after a work-related injury limited her typing, and that she was retaliated against for reporting the hostile environment and requesting accommodations. Her claims described a series of disciplinary investigations, negative personnel actions, and ultimately not being rehired after Judge Anderson’s retirement, allegedly due to animus from court officials.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for all defendants. The court found that the evidence did not support a hostile work environment claim under Title VII or an Equal Protection claim, as most of the alleged conduct was either not causally connected to her sex or not severe or pervasive enough. It also determined that the employer’s accommodations for her disability, such as use of the DAR system and requirements for sick leave, were reasonable and that negative comments were not relevant to an accommodation claim. On the retaliation claims, the court concluded that only two actions—her suspension and not being rehired—could be considered materially adverse, but found no evidence they were pretextual or causally linked to her protected activity.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 alleged conduct did not rise to the level of actionable severity or pervasiveness for a hostile work environment, that reasonable accommodations were provided, and that no reasonable jury could find the adverse actions were retaliatory. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "Golat v Swierawski" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Martinsville, Virginia, sought leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in November 2021 to care for his mother. He submitted an FMLA certification form, personally completing the section meant for a medical provider and subsequently obtaining a nurse’s signature. After submitting the form to his employer, concerns arose regarding the authenticity of the certification, specifically whether the medical provider was aware of signing a FMLA-related document. The plaintiff was questioned by his supervisor about the circumstances and ultimately terminated after declining to resign.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia reviewed the plaintiff’s claim that his FMLA rights had been interfered with when his employer contacted his mother’s medical provider for authentication before giving him an opportunity to cure any alleged deficiency. The district court assumed qualified immunity was a defense to FMLA interference claims, but denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion, ruling that federal regulations clearly established the right to a cure period before such contact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the interlocutory appeal, focusing on whether it was clearly established in November 2021 that an employer was prohibited from contacting a certifying medical provider for authentication without first offering the employee an opportunity to cure any inauthenticity. The Fourth Circuit found that the relevant FMLA regulations were not sufficiently clear to place this right “beyond debate” and concluded that a reasonable official could interpret the regulations as not requiring a cure period for authenticity concerns. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings on whether qualified immunity is available as a defense to FMLA interference claims. View "Mook v. Hall" on Justia Law

An executive at a group of medical device companies that sell products to the federal government raised internal concerns in early 2024 that the company was violating Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations related to product design, quality management, and testing. He believed that selling a particular product without addressing these regulatory deficiencies could result in misrepresenting data to the FDA to obtain approval. Over a two-week period, he communicated these concerns to multiple executives and suggested implementing changes to improve compliance. Shortly after these communications, his position was eliminated.Following his termination, the executive filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging, among other claims, that his employer retaliated against him in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA)’s anti-retaliation provision. The District Court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim, holding that the complaint failed to allege a sufficient connection between the plaintiff’s concerns about FDA violations and the submission of false claims for payment to the federal government, and thus did not constitute protected conduct under the FCA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed two questions: whether FCA retaliation claims are subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard, and what constitutes protected conduct under the “other efforts” prong of the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision. The court held that FCA retaliation claims are not subject to Rule 9(b), but instead require only notice pleading under Rule 8(a). It further held that, to constitute protected conduct, a plaintiff’s actions must be motivated by an objectively reasonable belief that the employer is submitting or will submit false or fraudulent claims for payment to the government. Finding no such allegation in the complaint, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the FCA retaliation claim. View "Lisenby v. Olympus Corporation of the Americas" on Justia Law

Brandon Holloway was employed by Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company for several years, performing tasks related to waste management and vendor coordination. In 2020, Holloway violated company procurement policies by directly contacting suppliers, which led to minor disciplinary action. Subsequent internal audits uncovered errors in his waste manifest forms and found he used his corporate credit card for personal expenses. Holloway acknowledged the credit card violation. He also alleged that he complained to management about company practices violating federal and state regulations and that he was subjected to racial discrimination. P&G terminated Holloway’s employment, citing policy violations and misuse of the company credit card.Holloway filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, alleging claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and violation of Louisiana’s whistleblower statute. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of P&G on all claims. The court found that Holloway failed to rebut P&G’s legitimate reasons for termination and did not provide evidence of a violation of law to support his whistleblower claim. Holloway appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decisions, holding that: (1) the use of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in the discrimination and retaliation claims was proper; (2) Holloway failed to show that P&G’s stated reasons for termination were pretextual; (3) Holloway did not provide significant evidence of retaliation beyond temporal proximity; and (4) Holloway did not establish that P&G violated any law, as required for a whistleblower claim under Louisiana law. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for P&G on all claims. View "Holloway v. Procter & Gamble Mftr" on Justia Law

A former Detroit Police Department officer, after sustaining injuries in car accidents, was placed on restricted duty due to permanent physical limitations. Over several years, she raised various grievances related to her employment status, overtime, and accommodations for her disabilities. In 2021, following additional injuries and extended sick leave, she failed to report for duty or provide updated medical documentation as requested by her employer, leading to her termination. Shortly after her termination, her physician sent documentation indicating she was unable to perform most police functions.She filed two lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, both under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging intentional discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation for engaging in ADA-protected activity. The district court consolidated the cases and granted summary judgment to the City on her retaliation claim, finding the City had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination—her repeated failure to report for duty or supply requested medical forms. The remaining claims for intentional discrimination and failure to accommodate proceeded to trial, where the jury found in favor of the City.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the plaintiff argued the district court erred in granting summary judgment, that no reasonable jury could have sided with the City, that jury instructions were incorrect, and that the City engaged in fraud at trial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. It held that the City’s actions were supported by legitimate reasons, the jury’s verdict was reasonable, the instructions accurately stated the law, and the fraud claims were unpreserved and insufficient for relief. The disposition was affirmed. View "Henry v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

Sylvia Morales was employed by San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for nearly two decades before being terminated. She filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination, asserting violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), including claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, and retaliation. Morales’s claims relied on statutory protections and a common law Tameny claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, not on any alleged breach of her employment agreement.After Morales filed her complaint, SDG&E moved to compel arbitration based on provisions in documents Morales had signed at hiring. The Superior Court of San Diego County granted the motion, concluding that the employment agreement’s arbitration clause covered all claims arising from Morales’s employment. The court reasoned that because the agreement described the employment as at-will, any claim based on exceptions to at-will employment constituted a dispute regarding an aspect of the agreement and thus was subject to arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One reviewed the case. Applying principles of contract interpretation, the court focused on the language of the arbitration provision in the September 12, 2005 agreement, which limited arbitration to disputes regarding any aspect of the agreement or any act violating the agreement. The court held that Morales’s statutory and public policy claims did not arise from the employment agreement nor did they allege violation of its terms; thus, the arbitration provision did not apply. The court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to deny SDG&E’s motion. The main holding is that the agreement’s arbitration provision does not compel arbitration of Morales’s FEHA, CFRA, or Tameny claims. View "Morales v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law