Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

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

Employees at a Kentucky bourbon distillery, dissatisfied with stagnant and uncompetitive wages, began discussing unionization with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. After management learned that a significant portion of employees supported the union effort, the company announced and implemented a $4-per-hour pay raise, expanded merit-based salary increases, and allowed more flexible vacation policies. These benefits were conferred after management had previously stated no further raises would be given that year. As the union election approached, the company also distributed bottles of bourbon to employees. Support for the union declined, and the union lost the election.An Administrative Law Judge found that the employer’s actions, including the wage increases and gifts, constituted unfair labor practices that interfered with employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The judge recommended ordering the company to bargain with the union, citing both the Supreme Court decision in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co. and the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) then-recent decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC. The NLRB adopted the judge’s factual findings and issued a bargaining order but relied solely on the Cemex standard rather than the Gissel standard.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that while substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding of unfair labor practices, the Board exceeded its authority by issuing a bargaining order based solely on the Cemex standard. The court determined that the Cemex standard was an improperly promulgated rule of general applicability, not derived from the facts of the case or designed as a case-specific remedy, and thus could not serve as the legal basis for the bargaining order. The Sixth Circuit granted the employer’s petition for review, denied the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement, and remanded the matter to the NLRB for further proceedings under proper standards. View "Brown-Forman Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

A former employee of a company signed a document as a condition of her employment that purported to shorten the period in which she could sue her employer for workplace disputes, including discrimination claims, to 180 days. This agreement included a tolling provision for the period when a charge was pending before an administrative agency. The employee was terminated and, after filing timely administrative charges with the EEOC and the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, she received a right-to-sue letter. She then filed suit in federal court, alleging violations of Title VII, the ADEA, and the Maryland Fair Employment Practice Act (MFEPA).After the employer moved to dismiss on the grounds that the lawsuit was untimely under the agreement, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, ruled in favor of the employer. The district court concluded the parties had validly agreed to shorten the limitations period, making the employee’s claims untimely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, as to the Title VII and ADEA claims, private parties may not, by advance agreement, prospectively shorten the statutory time periods for filing suit provided by Congress. The court reasoned that judicial enforcement of such agreements would undermine the comprehensive and uniform remedial schemes established by those statutes. Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Title VII and ADEA claims and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the MFEPA claims, finding that Maryland law permits reasonable contractual modifications of limitations periods and that the employee had not demonstrated the provision was unreasonably short or otherwise invalid under state law. View "Thomas v. EOTech, LLC" on Justia Law

Two companies that operate app-based delivery platforms challenged a Seattle ordinance enacted in 2023, which aims to protect gig economy workers from unwarranted account deactivations. The law requires “network companies” to provide workers with written deactivation policies and mandates that these policies be “reasonably related” to the companies’ safe and efficient operations. The ordinance also delineates examples of impermissible deactivation grounds, such as those based solely on customer ratings or certain background checks. The companies did not contest the general bar on unwarranted deactivations but argued that the notice and deactivation policy requirements violate the First Amendment and that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the companies sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the ordinance from taking effect. The district court denied their motion. It found that the ordinance regulates conduct (the act of deactivating accounts) rather than speech, and that any impact on expression is incidental. The court also concluded that the use of “reasonable” in the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, pointing to statutory context and specific examples for guidance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. The court held that the ordinance regulates nonexpressive conduct, not speech, and thus does not trigger First Amendment scrutiny. Alternatively, if the ordinance were seen as regulating speech, that speech would be commercial in nature, and the law would satisfy the lower level of scrutiny applicable to compelled factual commercial disclosures. The court further held that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague, as it provides adequate notice of what is prohibited. The disposition by the Ninth Circuit was to affirm the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. View "MAPLEBEAR INC. V. CITY OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Chitwood worked as a human resources specialist for Ascension and was granted intermittent Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for migraines in 2021, which she was required to report on the same day to a third-party administrator, Sedgwick, and to notify her supervisor as soon as practicable. She also received approval for continuous FMLA leave to care for her son from August 31 to November 3, 2021. After her continuous leave ended, Chitwood did not return to work despite explicit instructions and warnings from Ascension. She instead applied for a personal leave, which was denied, and ultimately left a voicemail on November 15, 2021, implying she believed she had been terminated. Ascension terminated her that day for failure to return to work. The following day, Chitwood attempted to retroactively report intermittent FMLA leave for absences on November 11, 12, and 15, but Ascension rejected these requests since she was already terminated.Chitwood filed suit against Ascension in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging interference with her FMLA rights and retaliation for using FMLA leave. The district court granted summary judgment for Ascension, finding no reasonable jury could rule in Chitwood’s favor. The court concluded she was not entitled to FMLA benefits at the time of her post-termination requests and had failed to provide timely notice for her absences.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Chitwood could not prevail on either her FMLA interference or retaliation claims because she was not denied FMLA benefits to which she was entitled and there was no evidence that her termination was retaliatory. The court found that her noncompliance with notice requirements and her failure to return to work justified her termination. View "Chitwood v. Ascension Health Alliance" on Justia Law

A former employee brought suit against his prior employer, alleging that the employer’s compensation plan for commissions violated several provisions of the California Labor Code. The employee claimed that the employer’s use of a “windfall” provision, which limited commission payments when revenue goals were substantially exceeded, resulted in retroactive reductions to earned commissions. The employer invoked this provision after the employee and others exceeded their sales goals, causing the employee’s final commission payment to be lower than anticipated. The employee resigned and later sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), as well as damages for alleged unpaid wages and other Labor Code violations.The Superior Court of Alameda County compelled arbitration of the employee’s individual claims but allowed the PAGA claims to proceed in court. During arbitration, the arbitrator found in favor of the employer on all individual claims, concluding that the compensation plan’s “windfall” provision did not violate the Labor Code sections at issue. The arbitrator determined that the commissions in question were not subject to the statutory requirements argued by the employee, and that the plan did not involve unlawful wage recapture or secret underpayment. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award, denied the employee’s motion for summary adjudication on the PAGA claim, and subsequently granted the employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the arbitration resolved the issue of whether the employee was an “aggrieved employee” with standing under PAGA.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The court held that the arbitration agreement was not illusory, that the arbitrator’s findings precluded the employee from maintaining PAGA standing, and that the employer’s commission plan did not violate the cited Labor Code provisions. The judgment in favor of the employer was affirmed. View "Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc." on Justia Law

An employee of MITRE Corporation, serving as a Principal Business Process Engineer, contracted COVID-19 twice. After experiencing long-COVID symptoms that prevented her from returning to her occupation, she applied for long-term disability (LTD) benefits under her employer’s ERISA-governed plan, administered by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Reliance denied her claim, asserting she was not “Totally Disabled.” She submitted further medical documentation and filed an internal appeal. The plan and ERISA regulations required Reliance to respond within 45 days, extendable by another 45 days only for “special circumstances,” with written notice specifying the reason and expected decision date.Reliance took more than 45 days to issue a decision, did not specify a date for resolution, and cited only routine medical review as justification for delay. The employee sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia after Reliance failed to timely decide her appeal. The district court found that Reliance had not complied with ERISA’s timing and notice requirements, held that de novo review (rather than deferential review) was appropriate, and ruled in favor of the employee, awarding LTD benefits and interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether Reliance’s delay deprived it of deferential review of its benefit determination. The court held that, because Reliance failed to decide the internal appeal within the required time and had not justified its delay with a special circumstance, it forfeited any entitlement to deference. The Fourth Circuit affirmed that de novo review applied, found no error in the district court’s factual findings or legal conclusions, and upheld the award of benefits to the employee. View "Cogdell v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Two Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) were employed by American Anesthesiology of Virginia, a subsidiary of North American Partners in Anesthesia (NAPA), and worked exclusively at medical facilities operated by a health care system. In 2022, the health care system denied their requests for exemptions from its Covid-19 vaccination policy, resulting in the suspension of their clinical privileges. Approximately two months later, NAPA terminated their employment. The CRNAs each filed lawsuits: one sued the health care system for discrimination under Title VII and the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA), and the other sued both the health care system and NAPA under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the VHRA. Both plaintiffs alleged that the health care system was their joint employer with NAPA.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed both complaints. It found that neither plaintiff plausibly alleged the health care system was their employer, as necessary for liability under the statutes invoked. Additionally, it dismissed the claims against NAPA for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the plaintiff did not name NAPA in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge. The district court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaints as to the health care system, but upon amendment, again dismissed with prejudice, concluding that the new allegations still did not support a joint employer relationship.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the health care system was their employer under the “joint employment” doctrine, applying a nine-factor control test from Butler v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc. The court further held that the plaintiff’s claims against NAPA were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of both complaints in full. View "Hoffman v. INOVA Health Care Services" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former Federal Air Marshal, worked for over seven years within the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). She began her employment after disclosing several vision-related medical conditions, and over time developed additional health problems, including cardiac and nerve issues. As her conditions worsened, TSA placed her on temporary “light duty” and reassigned her to a ground-based Regional Coordinator role with limited flight requirements. Eventually, TSA determined she could not meet the essential medical standards of her position and advised her to seek reassignment. The plaintiff requested reassignment due to her inability to perform the essential duties of her current role and was ultimately transferred to a position at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), a separate division within the Department of Homeland Security.Following her reassignment, the plaintiff experienced difficulties in her new role and unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of her reassignment. She subsequently filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that TSA failed to accommodate her disability under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed her claim, finding that she had not plausibly alleged that she was a “qualified individual” capable of performing the essential functions of her desired position. The court emphasized her own admission that she could not perform those duties and concluded that TSA had provided reasonable accommodations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual” for her desired position because she conceded her inability to perform its essential functions, even with accommodations. The court further held that TSA met its obligation by providing reasonable accommodations, including reassignment, and was not required to offer a permanent “light duty” position. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Redding v. Noem" on Justia Law

The case involves a multi-employer pension fund seeking to collect withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 from two corporate entities, which the fund alleged were successors to a defunct contributing employer. The companies denied any liability, contending they had never agreed to make contributions to the fund, were not under common control with the original employer, and were not otherwise subject to the fund’s claims. After the fund notified the companies of the alleged liability several years after the original employer ceased operations, the companies sought a declaratory judgment in federal court to clarify that they were not liable. The fund counterclaimed for withdrawal liability, as well as damages and interest.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the companies could be treated as employers under the applicable law, thus precluding summary judgment on that issue. Nevertheless, the District Court granted judgment in favor of the companies on a separate basis: it concluded that the fund’s eight-year delay in providing notice and demanding payment of withdrawal liability failed to meet the statutory requirement under 29 U.S.C. § 1399(b)(1) that such notice be given “as soon as practicable.” The court reasoned that this requirement is an independent statutory element—not an affirmative defense subject to waiver or arbitration—and that the fund’s failure to comply with it barred any recovery.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that timely notice and demand is a necessary element for a withdrawal liability claim to accrue under the MPPAA; if the fund fails to act “as soon as practicable,” its claim cannot proceed, regardless of whether the issue is raised in arbitration or by the parties. Arbitration was not required in this circumstance, and the District Court properly resolved the question. View "RTI Restoration Technologies Inc v. International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund" on Justia Law