Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between two unions representing Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees and the VA itself, along with the VA Secretary. The core issue centers on the VA’s termination of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that was signed in August 2023 and set to last three years. The termination followed a March 2025 executive order by President Trump that excluded the VA from coverage under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), citing national security. The VA Secretary then terminated the CBA, prompting the unions to file suit, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment.Prior to this case, unions not party here challenged the executive order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which issued a preliminary injunction. That injunction was later stayed and ultimately vacated on appeal by the Ninth Circuit. In the present case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction requiring the VA to reinstate the CBA and later issued an enforcement order when the VA attempted to re-terminate the agreement. The district court found that the termination was likely retaliatory and arbitrary and capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed requests to stay both the preliminary injunction and the enforcement order. The First Circuit denied the VA’s request to stay the preliminary injunction, finding the VA had not made a strong showing of likely success on appeal. However, the court granted a partial stay of the enforcement order, holding that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to order specific compliance with every term of the CBA under threat of contempt. The court otherwise denied the VA’s requests. View "American Federation of Gov't Employees Local 2305 v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

A correctional officer who also served as a union representative at a state prison was disciplined after posting materials related to her own prior disciplinary action on a union bulletin board. The materials, which included the surnames of other officers, were visible to inmate workers and were perceived by prison management as potentially fostering a “code of silence” among correctional staff. The officer was suspended for 60 workdays for this posting. She appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board (SPB), arguing her posting was protected speech regarding the Department’s disciplinary practices. Separately, her union filed a grievance, claiming the suspension violated the memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the Ralph C. Dills Act, which prohibit retaliation for protected union activities.The SPB ultimately upheld the suspension, determining that the posting constituted inexcusable neglect of duty and failure of good behavior, and justified the imposed penalty. The question of whether the discipline was retaliatory under the Dills Act was reserved for arbitration. The arbitrator later found in favor of the union, concluding the Department had retaliated against the officer for protected union activity and failed to prove it would have imposed the same discipline absent that activity. The arbitrator ordered the Department to rescind the discipline and make the officer whole, including backpay.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s decision that had struck the arbitrator’s remedy of rescinding the discipline and making the officer whole. The appellate court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers by issuing this award and that no explicit public policy or constitutional provision barred the arbitrator’s remedial authority under the MOU and Dills Act. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed entry of a new judgment confirming the arbitration award in its entirety. View "Dept. of Human Resources v. Cal. Correctional Peace Officers" on Justia Law

A semitruck driver suffered a left shoulder injury while unloading his truck at work. Medical treatment revealed a traumatic rotator cuff tear, and the employee underwent surgery that included a distal clavicle excision. After surgery, he continued to experience symptoms but was eventually cleared to return to work. Two physicians evaluated the extent of permanent impairment: the treating surgeon, who assigned 6% impairment and did not attribute the clavicle excision to the work injury, and an independent medical examiner, who assigned 19% impairment, including 10% for the clavicle excision based on the American Medical Association (AMA) Guides.At the arbitration hearing before the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commission, the deputy commissioner credited the independent medical examiner’s causation opinion but disagreed with his interpretation of the AMA Guides. The deputy concluded that the 10% impairment figure for the clavicle excision should be multiplied by 25%, as specified in another table in the Guides, resulting in an overall lower impairment rating. Both parties petitioned for judicial review. The Iowa District Court for Polk County affirmed the commissioner's decision, reasoning that the commissioner correctly applied the Guides over the experts’ interpretations. On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals, in a split decision, upheld the district court’s ruling regarding the impairment calculation and alternate medical care.The Supreme Court of Iowa granted further review only on the issue of permanent partial disability benefits. The court held that while the commissioner may select among expert views, the legal interpretation of the AMA Guides is a judicial function. The court concluded that the commissioner erred by applying the 25% multiplier to the clavicle excision impairment rating, as the specific table in the AMA Guides for this procedure does not require it. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Koeller v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation and Ace American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A state trooper was hired in 2016 and terminated in 2019 after an internal investigation found he had altered his timecard to accommodate an additional extra-duty detail shift, violating department policy. The termination was also based on his conduct during the investigation. After his termination, the employee moved out of state and did not return to his position even after subsequent legal proceedings.The employee appealed his termination to the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board (PAB), which found the termination was not warranted by the conduct and was unjust. The PAB reinstated him with a twenty-day suspension without pay and found him credible, though it noted poor judgment and time management. The Division of State Police appealed the reinstatement to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, which affirmed the PAB’s decision. After reinstatement, the parties disagreed over whether the employee was entitled to back pay and benefits. The PAB clarified that the reinstatement included back pay, less mitigation and the suspension period. A further dispute arose over whether this back pay should include expected overtime; the PAB ultimately awarded the employee anticipated overtime back pay based on an average of prior overtime earnings. The Division’s motion for rehearing was denied, prompting this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed whether the PAB had authority under RSA 273-D:3, V to award overtime back pay as part of “salary loss suffered.” The court held that the statute limits mandatory reinstatement awards to fixed compensation (“salary”) and does not include speculative amounts like overtime. Therefore, the PAB lacked authority to award overtime back pay. The Court reversed the PAB’s decision and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Appeal of N.H. Div. of State Police" on Justia Law

In this case, employees at two Starbucks locations in upstate New York initiated unionization efforts. At the Latham store, a shift supervisor and union organizer named James Schenk was terminated following several infractions, including using extreme profanity about a coworker in a group chat, failing to complete all tasks during a shift, and opening a letter addressed to Starbucks. At the Stuyvesant store, the district manager significantly increased her presence during the union campaign, which employees argued created an impression of surveillance.An Administrative Law Judge found that Starbucks did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by terminating Schenk at the Latham store, but determined that the district manager's actions at the Stuyvesant store did unlawfully create the impression of surveillance. The National Labor Relations Board agreed regarding the Stuyvesant store but reversed the ALJ as to the Latham store, concluding that Schenk would not have been disciplined or terminated but for his union activity. Starbucks petitioned for review, and the Board sought enforcement of its order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Board failed to adequately consider contradictory evidence, including whether Schenk's misconduct was sufficiently distinct from other employees' behavior and whether his opening of official mail was treated differently for a legitimate reason. The court found the Board’s reasoning insufficient and vacated the Board’s decision regarding Schenk’s termination, remanding the case for further proceedings. The petition for review was granted, and the case was remanded to the Board for further consideration consistent with the court’s opinion. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Daniel Paris, an employee of MacAllister Machinery Company and member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 324, was terminated following a series of disciplinary issues, including performance deficiencies, attendance problems, and violations of company policy. After signing a “last chance” agreement, Paris’s employment was terminated when he violated its terms. Paris claimed he was discriminated against due to his union affiliation and age, and that he was subjected to harsher scrutiny than his peers. He also alleged that after reporting harassment and requesting information about taking leave for mental health issues, he was not properly supported by the Union and ultimately lost his job.Following his termination, Paris filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, asserting claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) against both MacAllister and the Union. The district court dismissed the LMRA claims against both defendants for failure to state a claim, finding Paris had not plausibly alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ELCRA claims. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for MacAllister on the remaining FMLA claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court held that Paris failed to establish a “serious health condition” under the FMLA because he did not seek treatment or provide required documentation. While it concluded that Paris’s inquiry about FMLA leave was a protected activity, it found MacAllister had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his termination, unconnected to FMLA retaliation or interference. The appellate court also affirmed dismissal of the LMRA claims, finding Paris did not plausibly allege breach of the Union’s duty or properly preserve related arguments on appeal. View "Paris v. MacAllister Machinery Co." on Justia Law

An employee of the United States Postal Service (USPS) worked as an Operations Industrial Engineer beginning in 2013. He alleged that, shortly after starting, he was harassed by a mentor on the basis of his national origin, race, and religion, and that after he complained, his work environment became more hostile. He also claimed to have faced retaliation for whistleblowing about safety violations and wastefulness. Over time, he received a Letter of Warning, was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan, and issued a Letter of Concern, all of which he believed were retaliatory. The situation resulted in medical issues, leading him to take medical leave, request reasonable accommodation, and ultimately remain on leave for several months. During this time, he filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint, and while it was pending, he resigned, attributing his departure to the intolerable environment and alleged retaliation.The EEOC eventually granted summary judgment in favor of USPS, finding no evidence of unlawful discrimination or that the employee suffered an adverse employment action. Nearly four years after resigning and shortly after the EEOC’s decision, he appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board), asserting that his resignation was involuntary due to duress and coercion by USPS. The Board’s administrative judge found that he failed to non-frivolously allege that his resignation was coerced, misinformed, or otherwise involuntary, noting he could have continued to pursue remedies instead of resigning. The Board affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case to determine if the employee had made non-frivolous allegations of involuntary resignation that would entitle him to a hearing. The court held that he had not, emphasizing that the facts did not show the agency effectively imposed his resignation or deprived him of reasonable alternatives. The court affirmed the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. View "TAVAKKOL v. MSPB " on Justia Law

An art teacher with progressive hearing and vision loss, caused by Usher syndrome, sought approval from her Ohio school district to use paid sick leave for a mandatory three-week out-of-state training course required to obtain a guide dog. The district denied her request for paid leave, reasoning that the training did not qualify as “personal illness” under its sick-leave policy, but allowed her to take unpaid leave as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She attended the training using unpaid leave, obtained the guide dog, and then, after unsuccessful further communication with the district, brought suit alleging violations of the ADA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment for the school district. The court found that her ADA disparate treatment claim failed due to a lack of evidence that nondisabled employees were treated more favorably in similar circumstances. The court also found that the district’s offer of unpaid leave constituted a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, as the law does not require the employer to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation if another reasonable one is offered. Regarding the FMLA claim, the district court concluded that paid sick leave was not required because the school district would not “normally” provide paid sick leave for this type of absence under its policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. It held that the plaintiff could not prevail on her ADA disparate treatment claim because she failed to show that similarly situated nondisabled employees received paid sick leave for comparable non-illness-related absences. Her failure-to-accommodate claim failed because unpaid leave was a reasonable accommodation, and the ADA does not mandate provision of the employee’s preferred form of leave. The FMLA claim failed because the district’s policy did not normally allow paid sick leave for guide dog training, and the plaintiff did not sufficiently challenge the district court’s interpretation of the policy. View "Tumbleson v. Lakota Local Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

A former court reporter who worked for nearly four decades for a California county discovered, as she approached retirement, that the county had failed to enroll her in the state retirement system (CalPERS) for several years early in her employment. Upon learning this, she attempted to secure a complete employment record from the county, which CalPERS required to adjust her retirement benefits. The county failed to provide complete records, reportedly due to records being lost or destroyed, and provided only incomplete information to CalPERS. This left her unable to purchase prior service credit or receive full retirement benefits, causing her financial harm and forcing her to delay retirement.After filing a claim with the county and receiving no response, the plaintiff brought multiple causes of action in the Humboldt County Superior Court, including alleged violations of statutory duties and negligence against the county and individual employees. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers, dismissing all statutory claims without leave to amend and granting leave to amend only the negligence claim. When the plaintiff submitted an amended complaint limited to negligence, the trial court again sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding no statutory duty supported the claim.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiff had stated valid causes of action against the county for violation of mandatory statutory duties to maintain personnel records and to enroll eligible employees in CalPERS under Government Code section 815.6. The court also held, in an unpublished portion, that the plaintiff stated a viable negligence claim against the individual defendants, with the county potentially vicariously liable. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of these claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gibbs v. County of Humboldt" on Justia Law

A White male employee of the Colorado Department of Corrections was required to attend a racial sensitivity training program that addressed the historical mistreatment of racial minorities. He found the training offensive, alleging that it created a discriminatory and hostile work environment against White employees. The employee claimed that the training included materials and recommendations—such as a glossary and videos—that generalized about the role of all White people in perpetuating racial injustice. He also alleged that, following the training, there was an ongoing commitment to similar programs, that employees were required to endorse the training’s ideology, that supervisors used the training in disciplinary decisions, that the training compromised workplace security, and that the Department failed to investigate his complaints.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the employee’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The district court found that, even accepting the allegations as true, the facts pleaded did not plausibly show a workplace that was sufficiently hostile under the legal standard required for a hostile work environment claim. The court declined to liberally construe the complaint because it was drafted by counsel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, assuming for argument’s sake that the complaint should be liberally construed. The appellate court held that the employee did not plausibly allege facts sufficient to show that the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult that was severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working environment. The court also affirmed dismissal of the constructive discharge claim and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice, as the plaintiff failed to address the deficiencies after multiple opportunities to amend. The judgment was affirmed. View "Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections" on Justia Law