Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Samuel Perez filed a lawsuit in 2022 against By the Rockies, LLC, alleging that during his employment in 2016 and 2017, he and other employees were denied required meal and rest breaks, in violation of Colorado’s Minimum Wage Act. Perez sought recovery for unpaid wages based on these alleged violations. By the Rockies moved to dismiss the claim as untimely, arguing that the applicable statute of limitations was two years, as set forth in the Colorado Wage Claim Act, while Perez contended that the general six-year limitations period for actions to recover a liquidated debt should apply, since the Minimum Wage Act itself does not specify a limitations period.The District Court for Larimer County agreed with By the Rockies and dismissed Perez’s complaint, applying the Wage Claim Act’s two-year statute of limitations. Perez appealed, and a divided panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. The majority held that the six-year limitations period in section 13-80-103.5(1)(a) applied, reasoning that the Wage Claim Act’s limitations period was restricted to claims brought specifically under that Act, not under the Minimum Wage Act. The dissent argued that the Wage Claim Act’s limitations period was more specific and appropriate in light of the overall statutory scheme governing wage claims in Colorado.The Supreme Court of Colorado granted certiorari to resolve which limitations period applies to claims under the Minimum Wage Act. The Court held that the two-year limitations period set forth in the Wage Claim Act governs such claims, reasoning that both Acts are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme addressing unpaid wages and that the Wage Claim Act is more specific to wage disputes than the general limitations provision. The Supreme Court of Colorado reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the district court’s order of dismissal. View "By the Rockies, LLC v. Perez" on Justia Law

The plaintiff brought claims against her former employer alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. After removal to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, some claims were resolved at summary judgment, leaving the federal wage claims for trial. Before trial, the parties participated in a court-ordered mediation before a magistrate judge, during which they reached an oral settlement agreement whose terms were recited on the record. The agreement included payment to the plaintiff, confidentiality, non-defamation, and no-rehire clauses, as well as dismissal of the action with prejudice. Both parties, including the plaintiff and her counsel, confirmed their assent to the agreement.Following the mediation, the defendant prepared written settlement documents and a stipulation of dismissal. However, the plaintiff refused to sign, asserting she felt pressured and that certain terms were ambiguous or not sufficiently definite. The district court reviewed these objections after the defendant moved to enforce the settlement. The court found the agreement enforceable, denied the plaintiff’s request for an evidentiary hearing on alleged undue influence due to lack of factual support, and ordered her to execute the documents. After the plaintiff failed to comply, the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court did not err in enforcing the oral settlement agreement or in denying the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and request for an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court found no genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence or terms of the settlement and affirmed the district court’s judgment, awarding costs and attorney fees to the defendant. View "Maccarone v. Siemens Industry, Inc." on Justia Law

Two former employees of a global toy and game company sought religious exemptions from the company’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Both had worked remotely during the pandemic and requested to continue working remotely due to their sincerely held Christian beliefs, which included objections to vaccines developed or tested using tissue from aborted fetuses and a belief that receiving the vaccine would violate their religious principles. After submitting their accommodation requests, both employees experienced workplace actions they alleged were retaliatory and discriminatory. These included formal investigations and written warnings for alleged prior mask policy violations, exclusion from promotion opportunities, reassignment of roles, dissemination of personal medical information, and changes to established workplace practices. Both resigned, asserting that these actions compelled their departures.The plaintiffs initiated legal action in Rhode Island state court, raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, and the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which granted the employer’s motion to dismiss. The district court determined that the plaintiffs’ objections to vaccination were not based on religion, characterizing their beliefs as moral rather than religious, and held that the complaint failed to allege sufficiently adverse employment actions or a causal connection between the plaintiffs’ accommodation requests and any adverse action.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that their refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine was based on bona fide religious beliefs, as recognized in recent circuit precedent. The court concluded that the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded plausible claims of retaliation and religious discrimination under federal and state law. Accordingly, the First Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "DeAngelis v. Hasbro, Inc." on Justia Law

A female custodian employed by a public university filed a Title IX complaint alleging physical assault and a pattern of sexual harassment by a male co-worker, both of whom were members of the same union. The university, which receives federal funding, initiated a Title IX grievance process compliant with 2020 federal Title IX Regulations. After an investigation and hearing in which both parties participated, university decision-makers found the accused violated university policy and determined there was just cause for his termination. The accused’s appeal within the Title IX process was unsuccessful, and he was terminated.The union representing the accused employee filed a grievance under its 2019 collective negotiation agreement (CNA) with the university, seeking arbitration to determine whether the termination was for just cause. The university denied the grievance, arguing that the federal Title IX Regulations preempted the CNA’s grievance procedure. The union sought arbitration through the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), which denied the university’s request to restrain arbitration and held, applying state preemption law, that the Title IX Regulations did not preempt arbitration. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, finding no conflict precluding the union’s grievance procedure.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts. The Court held that the CNA’s grievance procedure is preempted by the 2020 federal Title IX Regulations because those regulations require that any grievance or appeal process must apply equally to both complainant and respondent. The CNA’s arbitration process excluded the alleged victim from participation, granting rights only to the accused. The Court concluded that this inequality creates a direct conflict with federal law, which therefore preempts the CNA’s arbitration provision in this context. The decision is limited to this particular CNA and does not preempt all union grievance procedures. View "In the Matter of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey v. AFSCME Local 888" on Justia Law

A substitute teacher in a large Maryland public school system challenged the school board’s policy requiring all staff, including substitutes, to affirm that they would refer to students by their preferred pronouns and not disclose a student’s gender identity to parents without the student’s consent. The teacher, citing her sincerely held religious beliefs, refused to sign the affirmation and requested a religious accommodation, which was ultimately denied. As a result, she was not permitted to substitute teach in the following school years.She brought claims in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the school board, asserting violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act related to religious accommodation, and First Amendment violations of her rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. She sought damages, declaratory relief, and a preliminary injunction. The district court dismissed her First Amendment claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, finding the policy to be neutral and generally applicable, thus subject to rational basis review, and rationally related to legitimate government interests, including compliance with Title IX and student safety. The court concluded that the speech at issue was part of her official duties as a teacher and thus not protected by the First Amendment. The court denied a preliminary injunction, finding no likelihood of success on the merits for the constitutional claims and no irreparable harm for the Title VII claim, which was allowed to proceed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the First Amendment claims and denial of a preliminary injunction. The Fourth Circuit held that the policy was neutral and generally applicable, survived rational basis review, and the compelled speech fell within the teacher’s official duties. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief on her constitutional claims. View "Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools" on Justia Law

Rodney Phath applied for a truck driving position with Central Transport LLC. He had the necessary qualifications and disclosed during the hiring process that he had a fifteen-year-old armed robbery conviction, for which he had served six years in prison. Upon learning of this conviction, Central Transport immediately decided not to hire him. Phath then filed a lawsuit, alleging that Central Transport violated a Pennsylvania statute that restricts how employers may use criminal history information in employment decisions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Phath’s claim. The court reasoned that the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act did not apply in this instance because Central Transport had learned of Phath’s conviction directly from him, rather than from a state agency’s records.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the matter de novo. The Third Circuit held that the Act’s protections are triggered whenever an employer receives information that is part of an applicant’s criminal history record information file, regardless of the source of that information. The court concluded that nothing in the statute requires the information to come specifically from a state agency’s file. Thus, by learning of Phath’s conviction—even through his own disclosure—Central Transport was subject to the Act’s provisions, including restrictions on how it may use that information and requirements for notifying the applicant if rejected on that basis.As a result, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the Act applies even when an applicant self-discloses criminal history information. View "Phath v. Central Transport LLC" on Justia Law

An employee of a Massachusetts public college, serving as director of facilities and public safety, objected to the college’s failure to report a student’s sexual assault allegations as required under federal law. The employee, who was responsible for campus security and compliance with the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act), learned that various college officials had been informed of the student’s allegations over several years, but the incidents were not reported to the U.S. Department of Education as required. The employee raised these concerns with State auditors and the chair of the college’s board of trustees. Subsequently, the college conducted internal and external investigations, which confirmed failures to report the incidents. The employee was later terminated, with the college citing performance deficiencies, including failure to comply with reporting obligations.The employee filed suit in the Massachusetts Superior Court, claiming wrongful termination in violation of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act (MWA). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Superior Court judge ruled that the employee engaged in protected activity under the MWA by objecting to the college’s failure to report as required by the Clery Act, but left the question of whether the employee’s whistleblowing or his own purported misconduct caused his termination for the jury. After trial, the jury found in the employee’s favor, awarding damages.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed whether the summary judgment ruling on protected activity was correct. The court held that, as a matter of law, an employee objecting to undisputedly unlawful activity—here, the failure to report as required by the Clery Act—engaged in protected activity under the MWA, even if the employee was involved in the underlying wrongdoing. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding the trial judge properly submitted the causation question to the jury. View "Galvin v. Roxbury Community College" on Justia Law

A group of former and current employees of a staffing agency alleged that the company misclassified recruiters as exempt from state overtime laws and failed to provide required meal and rest breaks. After the employees filed a putative class action in state court, which the company removed to federal court, the parties engaged in over a year of discovery and completed class certification briefing. Shortly after class certification briefing closed, the company implemented a new, mandatory arbitration agreement for internal employees, including the putative class members. This agreement required class members to either quit their jobs or affirmatively opt out of arbitration if they wished to remain in the class, effectively reversing the typical opt-out structure of class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted class certification and, after reviewing the company’s communications about the new arbitration agreement, found them misleading and potentially coercive. The court determined that the communications disparaged class actions, omitted key information, and confused recipients about their rights and deadlines, especially as the emails were sent during a holiday period. Consequently, when the company moved to compel arbitration against class members who had not opted out, the district court denied the motion, relying on its authority under FRCP 23(d) to ensure the fairness of class proceedings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that district courts have broad authority under FRCP 23(d) to refuse to enforce arbitration agreements when a defendant’s conduct undermines the fairness of the class action process, especially where communications are misleading and subvert the opt-out mechanism. The court also held that the arbitration agreement’s delegation provision did not prevent the district court from ruling on enforceability in this context. View "AVERY V. TEKSYSTEMS, INC." on Justia Law

A former Boston police officer alleged that the Boston Police Department (BPD) retaliated against her after she reported a fellow officer for rape in 2009. Following her report, both she and the accused officer were placed on leave, and subsequent criminal and internal investigations found her allegations unsubstantiated. She later made additional complaints of misconduct by BPD officials, which were also found unsubstantiated. In response, BPD’s Internal Affairs Department sustained numerous disciplinary charges against her, and she resigned with these charges pending. After her resignation, she applied for various jobs, authorizing prospective employers to request her employment and disciplinary records from BPD. Additionally, BPD included her name and reason for departure in a list provided to the Washington Post in response to a public records request.The Massachusetts Superior Court dismissed her three successive lawsuits against BPD, primarily for procedural reasons, with the last dismissal in 2017 operating as an adjudication on the merits. In federal court, claims based on alleged retaliatory acts before February 2, 2017, were precluded due to the prior state court judgment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed her Title VII retaliation claims to proceed only as to BPD’s actions after that date, specifically regarding the release of her records to prospective employers and the Washington Post.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for BPD. The court held that no reasonable jury could find that retaliation was the but-for cause of BPD’s release of employment information, since Doe had authorized those disclosures and there was no evidence of deviation from standard procedure or retaliatory motive. The court also held that BPD’s response to the public records request was legally required and contained accurate information. View "Doe v. City of Boston" on Justia Law

The underlying dispute arose after a public university system in California revised its student vaccination policy, reducing the number of mandatory immunizations required for incoming students as of fall 2023. The faculty union, representing teaching and academic staff, believed this policy change could negatively affect the health and safety of faculty members, especially those who are immunocompromised. Upon learning of the change shortly after its adoption, the union formally demanded bargaining over the policy’s effects. The university responded that the policy did not pertain to employment terms but was willing to meet and discuss the union’s concerns. The union declined this offer and instead filed an unfair practice charge, alleging the university failed to bargain in good faith.An administrative law judge for the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) heard the case and found that, while the vaccination policy itself was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, its foreseeable effects on faculty health required effects bargaining. The judge concluded the university violated its statutory duty by implementing the policy without bargaining and ordered remedies including rescinding the policy and compensating affected employees. The university contested these findings, asserting it neither implemented the policy before the charge was filed nor refused to bargain, and that accommodations for affected faculty were already available under disability laws.On review, PERB largely upheld the administrative law judge’s findings, holding the university had a duty to bargain over the effects of the policy and had begun implementing it without sufficient notice and opportunity for bargaining. However, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, found that while substantial evidence supported PERB’s conclusion that the policy had reasonably foreseeable effects on faculty health and thus required effects bargaining, there was no substantial evidence the university had implemented the policy or definitively refused to bargain prior to the union’s charge. Therefore, the court affirmed PERB’s ruling on the duty to bargain effects, but vacated the finding of a statutory violation and the associated remedies, remanding the matter for the parties to engage in effects bargaining. View "Trustees of the Cal. State Univ. v. Public Emp. Relations Bd." on Justia Law