Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a senior engineer at a city water-treatment plant, applied for a superintendent position. Despite holding a Ph.D. in engineering and having extensive technical experience, he lacked significant leadership experience. The city’s hiring process initially required a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field, but the city selected a younger, white candidate without a degree who had substantial leadership experience. The plaintiff, a middle-aged man from China, filed a grievance, and the city’s civil-service commission determined that the city had violated its written hiring policies by certifying candidates without the required degree. In response, the city revised the job description, removing the degree requirement and allowing work experience to substitute for education, then repeated the hiring process, ultimately selecting the same candidate.The plaintiff pursued claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the city on all remaining claims, finding that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext and did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiff did not submit evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the city’s stated preference for leadership experience was pretext for unlawful discrimination. The court found no sufficient evidence of procedural irregularities or subjectivity to support an inference of pretext, nor an overwhelming disparity in qualifications. The Tenth Circuit further held that the plaintiff failed to show pretext for retaliation, as the city’s explanation for changing the job requirements was not contradicted. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Jiang v. City of Tulsa" on Justia Law

Retired employees of two companies, who participated in their employers’ defined benefit pension plans, brought class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). These plaintiffs, all married, claimed that their plans calculated joint and survivor annuity benefits using mortality tables based on outdated data from the 1960s and 1970s. Because life expectancies have increased since then, the plaintiffs asserted that using such outdated mortality assumptions improperly reduced their benefits, resulting in joint and survivor annuities that were not the actuarial equivalent of the single life annuities to which they would otherwise be entitled, as required by ERISA.Each group of plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court—one in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Kellogg plans and one in the Western District of Tennessee against the FedEx plan—asserting that the use of obsolete actuarial assumptions violated 29 U.S.C. § 1055(d) and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The district courts in both cases dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim, holding that ERISA does not require use of any particular mortality table or actuarial assumption in calculating benefits for married participants, and thus the allegations, even if true, did not establish a violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that, under ERISA’s statutory requirement that joint and survivor annuities be “actuarially equivalent” to single life annuities, plans must use actuarial assumptions, including mortality data, that reasonably reflect the life expectancies of current participants. The court concluded that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the use of outdated mortality tables was unreasonable and could violate ERISA. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district courts’ judgments and remanded both cases for further proceedings. View "Reichert v. Kellogg Co." on Justia Law

The appellant worked for the appellee as an information technology employee in Boston for over twenty-five years. In August 2019, the company placed her on a three-month performance improvement plan (PIP), which she completed successfully. Approximately ten months after completing the PIP, she resigned from her position. She subsequently brought suit against her former employer, claiming, among other things, that she was subjected to unlawful age discrimination when she was placed on the PIP and then constructively discharged.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to the employer. The court found that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the PIP constituted an adverse employment action or that the circumstances of her resignation amounted to a constructive discharge. In the district court’s view, the plaintiff’s successful completion of the PIP, the absence of demotion or pay reduction, and the lack of substantial changes in her responsibilities meant she did not suffer an adverse employment action. The court also concluded that the comments and actions by her supervisors did not create intolerable working conditions that would force a reasonable person to resign.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit first addressed the timeliness of the appeal. The court determined that the appellant’s pro se motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal met the requirements to be treated as a timely notice of appeal, making the appeal timely. On the merits, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that, under the Supreme Court’s standard in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the PIP did not alter the terms or conditions of employment, and that the record did not support a finding of constructive discharge. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "Walsh v. HNTB Corporation" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a United States Army veteran with disabilities, worked as a table games dealer at a casino operated by Harrah’s NC Casino Company in North Carolina. After being terminated and banned from the property, allegedly due to his emotional distress, veteran status, and health history, he was told he could be rehired after one year. When he reapplied, his job offer was rescinded, and he was denied rehire. The plaintiff claimed that his termination and subsequent denial of reemployment were the result of discrimination and retaliation based on his exercise of rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).After the plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Harrah’s moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7), arguing that the Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise (TCGE), a wholly owned entity of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, was the plaintiff’s true employer and a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19. Because TCGE was protected by tribal sovereign immunity and could not be joined, the district court dismissed the complaint. The district court relied on a declaration from TCGE’s human resources vice president and prior case law to conclude that TCGE’s contractual and economic interests would be prejudiced by the litigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s application of Rule 19 and found that it abused its discretion by determining that TCGE was a necessary party. The appellate court held that the record did not support the conclusion that TCGE’s presence was essential to afford complete relief or protect contractual interests, and that the district court’s analysis was speculative and unsupported. The Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Peterson v. Harrah's NC Casino Company, LLC" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a county employer required its employees to either be fully vaccinated or undergo weekly COVID-19 testing. Employees could test at county facilities during work hours or use at-home test kits and count that time as work. Two employees objected to these requirements on religious grounds. One employee, Borgheiinck, asserted that mandatory vaccines and testing conflicted with her Christian beliefs about bodily autonomy. She was initially given unpaid leave as an accommodation, but the county later revoked this, citing undue hardship, and ultimately terminated her after not responding to her proposals for alternative work arrangements. The other employee, Colson, also objected on religious grounds. She was granted an exemption from nasal swab testing and allowed to use saliva tests, which she found intrusive and non-private, but she was not terminated.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed all claims, including those under Title VII. The plaintiffs sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration based on new legal precedent, but the court denied this request. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their Title VII claims and the denial of reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that Borgheiinck’s complaint did not sufficiently connect her religious beliefs to an objection to the testing policy, as required to state a plausible claim under Title VII. For Colson, the court held that she had not plausibly alleged that she suffered any adverse employment action, such as termination or unpaid testing time, since the county’s policy allowed testing during compensated time. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Title VII claims and its denial of leave to seek reconsideration. View "Colson v. Hennepin County" on Justia Law

Two former employees of a financial services company, each a participant in the employer’s defined contribution retirement plan, sued the company on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated plan participants. They alleged that the company, as plan sponsor and fiduciary, breached its duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by selecting and retaining certain BlackRock LifePath Index Funds as investment options, which they claimed were imprudent and caused monetary losses to their individual plan accounts. The plaintiffs sought recovery of losses under ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and 409(a).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss most of the claims, holding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a breach of fiduciary duty. It then certified a class of all plan participants and beneficiaries with investments in the BlackRock funds during the relevant period, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), finding that ERISA fiduciary-duty claims are inherently suitable for class treatment because they are brought on behalf of the plan and that allowing individual suits would risk inconsistent standards or impair interests of absent participants. The district court also found that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) was satisfied.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and vacated the class certification order. The Fourth Circuit held that, in the context of a defined contribution plan, claims under ERISA § 502(a)(2) for monetary losses to individual accounts are inherently individualized and cannot be joined in a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1), which does not provide for notice or opt-out rights. The court also held that the claims failed to satisfy the commonality prerequisite because many class members did not experience the same injury. The district court’s order was thus reversed and vacated. View "Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc." on Justia Law

A former employee brought a Title VII action against his previous employer, alleging that he suffered race-based harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. After being fired in May 2022, he filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice on June 2, 2023, which required him to file a lawsuit within ninety days, by August 31, 2023. The plaintiff attempted to retain an attorney, paying consultation fees twice, but the attorney was unresponsive for several weeks. Only a few days before the filing deadline, the attorney declined representation and advised the plaintiff to file pro se. The plaintiff quickly prepared his complaint and, with two days remaining, paid for guaranteed overnight delivery via the U.S. Postal Service. Due to delays caused in part by Hurricane Idalia, the complaint arrived at the district court after the ninety-day deadline.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia dismissed the lawsuit as untimely, finding that the plaintiff had not met his burden to show timely filing within the statutory period. The court considered, but rejected, the plaintiff’s explanation for the late filing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the plaintiff was entitled to equitable tolling because he pursued his rights diligently and extraordinary circumstances—specifically, the attorney’s delay and the effects of Hurricane Idalia—prevented timely filing. The court found no prejudice to the defendant from the brief delay. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the complaint should be deemed timely under the doctrine of equitable tolling. View "Beazer v. Richmond County Constructors, LLC" on Justia Law

The case centers on a plaintiff who filed a Fair Labor Standards Act suit for unpaid wages and recordkeeping violations against his former employer. The plaintiff’s attorney, who neither resides nor holds an office near the courthouse, failed to appoint local counsel within the required timeframe due to a calendaring error. Pursuant to the district court’s local rule, a notice was issued warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. After the deadline passed without compliance, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice, citing failure to prosecute or comply with court rules.Following the dismissal, the plaintiff promptly moved to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), arguing that his attorney’s oversight constituted excusable neglect, and appointed local counsel. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the plaintiff had not shown that dismissal without prejudice amounted to dismissal with prejudice, and cited prior Fifth Circuit cases as support. The plaintiff filed a second motion, distinguishing his case from the cited cases and again seeking relief, but the district court denied this motion as well, applying the same reasoning.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court erred by imposing a requirement that the plaintiff show dismissal without prejudice functioned as a dismissal with prejudice before granting relief under Rule 60(b). The Fifth Circuit clarified that neither Campbell v. Wilkinson nor Jones v. Meridian Security Insurance Company established such a standard for Rule 60(b) motions. The appellate court vacated the district court’s denials of the plaintiff’s motions and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to consider the proper factors for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). View "Deras v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

The plaintiff brought employment discrimination and retaliation claims against the defendants, his former employers, alleging violations of federal and state law. After initiating the lawsuit in July 2021, the plaintiff failed over several years to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests, despite multiple court orders and continuances. The plaintiff’s attorney repeatedly missed deadlines, did not answer interrogatories or produce documents, and failed to pay court-ordered attorney’s fees. Even after the court vacated its scheduling order, delayed the trial multiple times, and assessed additional attorney’s fees, the plaintiff’s counsel did not advance the case, leading to three continuances and a case that remained undeveloped.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana responded to the plaintiff’s ongoing lack of participation by granting the defendants’ motion to exclude all evidence when the fourth trial date approached with no discovery completed. The plaintiff’s counsel did not attend the status conference regarding the exclusion motion despite acknowledging notice. With no admissible evidence remaining, the court then granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed both the exclusion of evidence and the dismissal with prejudice for abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court correctly applied the standard four-factor test for exclusion of evidence as a discovery sanction and was not required to apply a heightened standard for litigation-ending sanctions. The court further found that a clear record of delay existed, lesser sanctions had proven futile, and the defendants were prejudiced by the plaintiff’s failures. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. View "Savage v. LaSalle Management" on Justia Law

Several employees of United Airlines challenged the company's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, alleging that United failed to provide reasonable religious and medical accommodations, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). United required all U.S. employees to be vaccinated by specific deadlines unless granted a religious or medical exemption. Employees seeking a religious accommodation needed to provide a personal statement of belief and a third-party attestation; those seeking a medical exemption had to submit supporting medical documentation. United initially planned to place all exempted employees on unpaid leave but later revised its policy for non-customer-facing employees, allowing them to work with masking and testing requirements, while customer-facing employees remained on indefinite unpaid leave.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas considered and partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The district court rejected a class seeking injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and a subclass of employees subject to masking and testing requirements, finding that the proposed classes lacked commonality and predominance due to the individualized nature of harm and the need for separate inquiries into the circumstances of each member. The court certified a modified subclass under Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of religious-accommodation seekers who were placed on unpaid leave but excluded those with medical accommodations from the subclass.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the class certification order under an abuse of discretion standard. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the broader classes and subclasses due to the individualized nature of the claims and in certifying the subclass of religious-accommodation seekers placed on unpaid leave. The court found that common questions predominated and that a class action was a superior method of adjudication for that subclass. View "Sambrano v. United Airlines" on Justia Law