Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

A group of trustees managing an ERISA-regulated pension plan invested in six classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs), some issued as notes under indenture agreements and others as trust certificates. The trustees alleged that companies servicing the underlying mortgages mismanaged the loans, acted in self-interest, and failed to protect investors’ interests, in violation of their fiduciary duties under ERISA. The investments included three classes of notes and three classes of trust certificates, each backed by pools of residential mortgages.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York considered cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the underlying mortgages constituted plan assets under ERISA. The district court ruled that only the RMBSs themselves, not the mortgages behind them, were plan assets as defined by the Department of Labor’s regulation. Consequently, it granted summary judgment to all defendants, holding that the servicers did not owe ERISA fiduciary duties regarding the mortgages, and denied the trustees’ cross-motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. The Second Circuit agreed that the notes issued under indenture agreements were not equity interests and did not confer plan asset status on the underlying mortgages. However, it found that the trust certificates were beneficial interests in the trusts and thus qualified as equity interests under the Department of Labor’s regulation. As a result, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment in part (regarding the notes), vacated in part (regarding the trust certificates), and remanded for further proceedings, including determination of whether the servicers acted as fiduciaries with respect to the trust certificates. View "Powell v. Ocwen Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

A former emergency medical technician employed by a private ambulance company brought a class action alleging that his employer systematically miscalculated the “regular rate of pay” by excluding certain nondiscretionary bonuses from that calculation. This exclusion, he contended, resulted in the underpayment of overtime, double time, and meal and rest period premiums for himself and approximately 135 current and former employees during the alleged class period. The company paid ten types of bonuses, and the plaintiff received one of these—a bonus awarded during National Emergency Medical Services Week—on a single occasion.The plaintiff filed his class action in the Superior Court of Tulare County, seeking class certification for wage and hour violations, including claims for unpaid overtime, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and other Labor Code violations. The employer opposed class certification, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was not typical of the proposed class because he received only one type of bonus and that each type of bonus involved unique circumstances and potential defenses. The trial court denied class certification solely on the ground that the plaintiff did not establish typicality, reasoning he would be subject to unique defenses regarding the inclusion of his bonus in the regular rate of pay.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that the purported defenses related to the nature of the bonus (as a gift or discretionary payment) were not unique to the plaintiff, since other employees received the same type of bonus under similar circumstances. Therefore, the trial court committed legal error in its analysis of typicality. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the class certification motion, not inconsistent with the appellate opinion. View "Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar" on Justia Law

After his employment as a wet plant foreman was terminated in January 2022, the plaintiff sent a certified letter in April 2022 to his former employer, requesting a service letter as required by Missouri law. He did not receive a response. The plaintiff later filed suit against the company, alleging a violation of section 290.140 for failure to provide the service letter. He also initially included a claim for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but that claim was dismissed in federal court, and the remaining statutory claim was remanded to state court.The Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County granted summary judgment to the defendant company. The defendant had argued that the plaintiff’s service letter request and lawsuit were directed at the wrong corporate entity, asserting that another related company had actually employed the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to properly respond to the summary judgment motion as required by Rule 74.04(c)(2), instead making bulk admissions and denials without specific references to the record. Because of this failure, the court deemed the defendant’s factual statements admitted and found no genuine issue of material fact. The plaintiff appealed, and the Supreme Court of Missouri granted transfer after an opinion by the court of appeals.The Supreme Court of Missouri held that summary judgment is not an “extreme or drastic remedy” and reaffirmed the requirements for summary judgment motions and responses under Missouri law. The Court concluded that, because the plaintiff did not properly preserve or raise any arguments demonstrating error by the circuit court, and failed to comply with procedural rules, there was no basis to overturn the grant of summary judgment. The judgment of the circuit court in favor of the defendant was affirmed. View "Wilkinson vs. Farmers Holding Companies" on Justia Law

Two builders’ associations, whose members are largely non-union construction contractors, challenged a federal procurement mandate issued by executive order in February 2022. The order, issued by the President, presumptively requires all contractors and subcontractors on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more to enter into project labor agreements with unions. The order allows for three specific exceptions if a senior agency official provides a written explanation. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued regulations implementing the order, and the Office of Management and Budget provided guidance. The associations argued that the mandate unfairly deprived their members of contracting opportunities and brought a facial challenge under several statutory and constitutional grounds, seeking to enjoin the mandate’s enforcement.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the associations were likely to succeed on their claim under the Competition in Contracting Act, since the government was not meaningfully applying the order’s exceptions, but concluded that the associations would not suffer irreparable harm because they could challenge individual procurements in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The district court did not consider irreparable harm as to the associations’ other claims.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, although for different reasons. The Eleventh Circuit held that the associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial challenge under the Competition in Contracting Act, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. The court emphasized that the existence of written exceptions in the executive order precluded a facial invalidity finding, and that the government acted within its statutory and proprietary authority. The court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast Chapter v. General Services Administration" on Justia Law

The case concerns events at a Starbucks location in La Quinta, California, where employees began a union organizing campaign in December 2021. Two shift supervisors, Andrea Hernandez and Jazmine Cardenas, actively supported the unionization effort. After the union won the election to represent employees, the union filed charges alleging Starbucks engaged in unlawful conduct during the organizing campaign. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint alleging that Starbucks had improperly restricted employees’ union discussions. To prepare its defense, Starbucks obtained Board-issued subpoenas directed to the two supervisors, seeking broad materials related to union activities.An administrative law judge (ALJ) found the subpoenas overbroad and granted petitions to revoke them, but allowed Starbucks to pursue narrower requests. The ALJ ultimately dismissed the underlying unfair labor practice complaint, with the NLRB affirming that decision. Separately, the Board initiated another unfair labor practice proceeding, alleging that Starbucks’ act of obtaining the subpoenas itself interfered with employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. The ALJ concluded Starbucks’ subpoenas violated Section 8(a)(1), using the standard from National Telephone Directory Corp., which balances confidentiality interests against an employer’s need for information. The Board adopted this reasoning and ordered Starbucks to cease the conduct and post a notice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The Fifth Circuit held that the Board applied the wrong legal standard by relying on National Telephone’s discovery rule, rather than the required “totality of the circumstances” test for coerciveness under Section 8(a)(1). The court vacated the Board’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, clarifying that the proper inquiry is whether the employer’s conduct would tend to be coercive under all the circumstances. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

An employee of a company made formal complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation while she was still employed. The company retained an outside attorney to investigate these complaints, who conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and produced two reports summarizing her findings and conclusions. The employee was later terminated and filed suit against the company and her former supervisors, alleging various employment-related claims. As part of its defense, the company asserted that it had thoroughly investigated the employee’s allegations by hiring an independent investigator, emphasizing the scope and adequacy of the investigation.After the Santa Clara County Superior Court initially denied the employee’s motion to compel production of the investigator’s reports and related materials, the employee sought mandamus relief. The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, previously issued a writ ordering the trial court to permit discovery of the reports and materials, subject to in camera review to determine if any protection for core attorney work product was warranted. Following this, the trial court allowed the company to redact certain portions of the reports, including all factual findings, on the basis that they constituted attorney work product and thus were not discoverable.Reviewing the case again, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that the company had waived attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection as to all factual findings and any information relevant to the scope or adequacy of the investigations, because it put these matters at issue in its defense. The court clarified that the waiver extended specifically to the investigator’s factual findings and materials relevant to the adequacy of the investigation, but not necessarily to unrelated legal advice. The court ordered the trial court to vacate its prior acceptance of the redactions, conduct further in camera review, and disclose all materials within the scope of the waiver. View "Paknad v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

A financial advisory employee of a large securities firm participated in a compensation program called the WealthChoice Awards, which provided annual contingent cash awards to select high-performing advisors. To earn these awards, an advisor had to meet certain revenue thresholds and remain employed at the company for eight years after the award was granted. A notional, unfunded account tracked a benchmark investment, but no funds were set aside for the advisor during the vesting period. If the advisor left the company before vesting, the award was typically forfeited. After vesting, payment was mandatory and made promptly, usually while the advisor was still employed. The stated purpose of the program was to incentivize retention and productivity, not to provide retirement income.After voluntarily resigning and forfeiting unvested awards, the employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. He alleged that the WealthChoice Awards program was an “employee pension benefit plan” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and that it violated ERISA’s vesting and anti-forfeiture rules. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the program was a bonus plan exempt from ERISA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the WealthChoice Awards program is a bonus payment plan and not an ERISA-covered pension benefit plan. The court reasoned that the program’s primary purpose was to enhance retention and productivity, eligibility was limited, the awards were not funded with deferred employee income, and payment was not systematically deferred until employment termination or retirement. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Milligan v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns the termination of the General Counsel of the District of Columbia Retirement Board (DCRB), who had served in that role for nearly fourteen years. Following an internal investigation in 2021–2022, DCRB found that the General Counsel had failed to properly investigate and disclose conflict-of-interest allegations about a prior Executive Director. Based on these findings, DCRB initiated removal proceedings, ultimately deciding to terminate the General Counsel. The termination notice advised her of her right to appeal to the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA), where she argued, among other things, that her removal violated a regulatory “ninety-day rule.”Before OEA, the General Counsel claimed that she was a Career Service employee, which would entitle her to removal protections and OEA review. DCRB did not contest this characterization before OEA. OEA found in her favor and ordered her reinstatement, concluding that DCRB had violated the ninety-day rule. DCRB then petitioned the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for review, newly contending that the General Counsel was not in the Career Service but instead was a Senior Executive Attorney in the Legal Service—a category of at-will employees not entitled to OEA review or removal protections. The Superior Court found factual disputes regarding her employment status and remanded the case to OEA to determine its jurisdiction.On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the statutory provisions governing DCRB and the Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act unambiguously classified the General Counsel as a Senior Executive Attorney in the Legal Service, making her an at-will employee not entitled to OEA review. The court concluded that the Superior Court committed clear error by remanding for factual findings on this question. Accordingly, it reversed the Superior Court’s order and directed that Ms. Sampson’s OEA appeal be dismissed. View "District of Columbia Retirement Board v. Office of Employee Appeals" on Justia Law

After the Governor of Nebraska issued an executive order in November 2023 generally prohibiting state executive branch employees from working remotely—with certain exceptions left to agency heads—a union representing state employees demanded to bargain with the State regarding this new policy. The State refused, asserting that the existing collective bargaining agreement already gave it the authority to determine work locations, so it had no further obligation to bargain over remote work. In response, the union filed a petition with Nebraska’s Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR), alleging the State committed a prohibited labor practice by refusing to negotiate over a mandatory subject of bargaining.The CIR reviewed the petition and received evidence, including the relevant collective bargaining agreement and testimony about the parties’ negotiations. The CIR found that the agreement expressly gave the State the right to change the site of its workforce, which included the authority to require employees to work at assigned locations and discontinue remote work. The CIR also concluded that, even if remote work was a mandatory subject of bargaining, the matter was already “covered by” the agreement, so the State was not required to bargain further. Alternatively, the CIR found the union had waived its right to bargain by withdrawing a remote work proposal during contract negotiations. The CIR dismissed the union’s petition with prejudice and, finding the petition frivolous and brought in bad faith, ordered the union to pay over $40,000 in attorney fees and costs.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s dismissal of the union’s petition, holding that the contract coverage rule applied: because the collective bargaining agreement authorized the State to change employees’ work locations, the State had no obligation to bargain further over the executive order. However, the court reversed the award of attorney fees, concluding that the union’s legal position was not frivolous under Nebraska law. The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Nebraska Assn. of Pub. Employees v. State" on Justia Law

Roman Gonzales worked as a Security Police Officer for a government contractor managing a nuclear facility. He had a chronic back injury, for which he took prescription opiates. Battelle Energy Alliance, the contractor, was aware of his medical condition and medication. For several years, Gonzales performed his duties without incident, including after the Department of Energy began requiring more stringent security and medical certifications for such officers. Despite no change in his medication regimen or job performance, Battelle, after a change in medical staff and updated drug testing protocols, revoked Gonzales’s fitness-for-duty certification and subsequently terminated his employment. Gonzales then learned that management had informed coworkers he was being dismissed as an “opioid abuser,” which he reported to human resources.Gonzales filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After a five-day trial, the jury found in his favor on claims of retaliation and “regarded as” disability discrimination. Battelle moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that decisions involving the revocation of security-related certifications, such as the one at issue, were not subject to judicial review because such decisions are reserved for federal agencies under national security regulations. The district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that revocation of Gonzales’s fitness-for-duty certification under 10 C.F.R. § 1046 was subject to judicial review because it involved medical and physical standards, not predictive national security determinations or security clearance decisions reserved to the Department of Energy. The court distinguished between non-justiciable security clearance decisions and fitness-for-duty certifications, ensuring ADA protections remain enforceable. View "GONZALES V. BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC" on Justia Law