Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Michelle Collins, a black woman, worked at Union Pacific Railroad Company for 42 years, holding over twenty positions. She alleged that several managers discriminated against her based on race, including assigning her unpleasant tasks and increasing her workload. Collins also reported conflicts with a coworker, Rhonda VanLew, who allegedly made her job more difficult. In 2020, Collins filed an internal complaint about VanLew, and VanLew also filed a complaint against Collins. A Union Pacific analyst concluded that the conflict was appropriately resolved by local management.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific. The court found that Collins could not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination or retaliation because she did not suffer an adverse employment action. Additionally, the court ruled that Collins's hostile work environment claim failed as she could not prove severe or pervasive harassment based on her race.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, agreeing that Collins did not sufficiently oppose the summary judgment on this ground in the lower court. However, the court reversed and remanded the discrimination and retaliation claims. The appellate court noted that the district court's analysis relied on outdated legal standards requiring a "materially significant disadvantage," which the Supreme Court had recently clarified was not necessary. The case was sent back to the district court to reconsider these claims under the correct legal framework. View "Collins v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

In early 2018, employees represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, went on strike at two quarries operated by RiverStone Group, Inc. During the strike, RiverStone disciplined and discharged a union member, required another to sign a hiring list to return to work, unilaterally changed a company policy, and removed picket signs. Local 150 filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging these actions were unfair labor practices.An administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that RiverStone violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as charged. RiverStone appealed, and the NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision in part. The NLRB found that RiverStone violated the NLRA by denying a union steward’s presence at an investigatory interview, requiring a union member to sign a preferential hiring list, removing picket signs, and unilaterally changing the punch-in policy. However, the NLRB disagreed with the ALJ regarding the discipline and discharge of the union member, concluding that RiverStone acted consistently with its progressive discipline policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the NLRB’s findings, stating that substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusions. The court agreed that RiverStone violated the NLRA by denying the union steward’s presence, requiring the signing of the hiring list, removing picket signs, and unilaterally changing the punch-in policy. However, the court also upheld the NLRB’s decision that RiverStone did not unlawfully discipline and discharge the union member, as the company followed its disciplinary policy. The court denied both RiverStone and Local 150’s petitions for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement. Additionally, the court denied Local 150’s motion for sanctions against the NLRB. View "International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

In early 2018, employees represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, went on strike at two quarries operated by RiverStone Group, Inc. During the strike, RiverStone disciplined and discharged a union member, required another union member to sign a hiring list to return to work, unilaterally changed a company policy, and removed picket signs. Local 150 filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging these actions were unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.An administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that RiverStone violated the Act as charged. RiverStone appealed to the NLRB, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision in part. The NLRB found that RiverStone violated the Act by denying a union steward’s presence at an investigatory interview, requiring a union member to sign a preferential hiring list, removing a picket sign, and unilaterally changing the punch-in policy. However, the NLRB disagreed with the ALJ’s finding that RiverStone unlawfully disciplined and discharged the union member, concluding that RiverStone acted consistently with its progressive discipline policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the NLRB’s findings, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s order. The court denied the petitions for review from both Local 150 and RiverStone and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement. The court found that RiverStone violated the Act by denying the union steward’s presence, requiring the signing of a preferential hiring list, removing a picket sign, and unilaterally changing the punch-in policy. However, the court agreed with the NLRB that RiverStone did not unlawfully discipline and discharge the union member. The court also denied Local 150’s motion for sanctions against the NLRB. View "Grove v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

In early 2018, employees represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, went on strike at two quarries operated by RiverStone Group, Inc. During the strike, RiverStone disciplined and discharged a union member, required another union member to sign a hiring list to return to work, unilaterally changed a company policy, and removed picket signs. Local 150 filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging these actions were unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.An administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that RiverStone violated the Act as charged. RiverStone appealed to the NLRB, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision in part. The NLRB found that RiverStone violated the Act by denying a union steward's presence at an investigatory interview, requiring a union member to sign a preferential hiring list, removing a picket sign, and unilaterally changing the punch-in policy. However, the NLRB disagreed with the ALJ regarding the discipline and discharge of the union member, concluding that RiverStone acted consistently with its progressive discipline policy and would have disciplined the employee regardless of his union activity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the NLRB’s findings, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s order. The court denied the petitions for review from both Local 150 and RiverStone and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement. The court also denied Local 150’s motion for sanctions against the NLRB and its counsel, finding that the Board’s waiver argument had a plausible legal and factual basis. View "National Labor Relations Board v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150" on Justia Law

Jo Spence, a licensed attorney, was terminated from her position at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after eleven years. She claimed her termination was retaliatory, following her filing of internal discrimination complaints and whistleblower disclosures. Spence alleged discrimination based on race, sex, and age, and also claimed the VA engaged in illegal preferential hiring practices. She filed a complaint in the district court after the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) upheld her termination, citing her poor performance.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed most of Spence’s claims for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment on her remaining claim. The court found that Spence, despite being pro se, was not entitled to the leniency typically afforded to pro se litigants due to her legal training and experience. The court dismissed her initial lengthy complaints and allowed her to amend them multiple times, but ultimately dismissed her claims with prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s page limits and pleading requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the liberal pleading standard for pro se litigants does not apply to licensed attorneys. It found that Spence failed to plead sufficient facts to support her claims of retaliation and discrimination, and that her termination was supported by substantial evidence of poor performance. The court also upheld the district court’s dismissal of her claims with prejudice, noting Spence’s repeated failure to comply with court rules and orders. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Spence v. DVA" on Justia Law

Brian Ambroise, a Senior Correctional Police Officer at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women, faced disciplinary charges from the Department of Corrections (DOC) in December 2020. The charges included conduct unbecoming a public employee and undue familiarity with inmates, stemming from allegations that Ambroise had a sexual relationship with an inmate, J.O., and performed favors for her, such as bringing in contraband and passing messages. Ambroise admitted to kissing J.O. and failing to report it, as well as passing a message between inmates.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) modified the DOC’s penalty from removal to a twenty-day suspension, sustaining only the charge of failing to report the kiss and dismissing the others. The DOC appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which affirmed the ALJ’s finding on the failure to report but reversed the dismissal of the undue familiarity charge. The Commission imposed a six-month suspension, considering Ambroise’s previously unblemished record and the seriousness of his conduct.The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the Commission’s decision to be arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The Court held that the Commission failed to adequately consider the DOC’s expertise in maintaining prison security and the seriousness of Ambroise’s offenses. The Court emphasized that Ambroise’s failure to report the kiss and his undue familiarity with inmates compromised prison security and discipline. Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and reinstated the DOC’s recommended sanction of removal, remanding the case to the Commission to redetermine the penalty in accordance with the Court’s decision. View "In the Matter of Brian Ambroise" on Justia Law

Cleveland Stegall was employed at an FCA vehicle assembly plant through a staffing agency, Brightwing. In late 2015, FCA announced plans to eliminate Stegall’s shift by summer 2016. In April 2016, Stegall raised concerns about asbestos in the workplace to his FCA supervisors, who promised air quality tests but did not provide results. Stegall continued to request the results and threatened to file complaints with OSHA and Michigan OSHA. He was terminated on June 17, 2016, and subsequently filed a discrimination complaint with Michigan OSHA, alleging retaliation for his asbestos concerns.The Oakland Circuit Court granted summary disposition for both defendants, ruling that Stegall’s public-policy claim was preempted by the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) and that internal complaints could not support a public-policy claim. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the public-policy claim was preempted and could not be based on internal reporting. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that internal reporting could support a public-policy claim and remanded for further consideration of whether the claim was preempted by other laws.On remand, the Court of Appeals concluded that Stegall’s public-policy claim was preempted by OSHA and MiOSHA, as these statutes provided exclusive remedies for retaliation. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the remedies under OSHA and MiOSHA were inadequate and thus not exclusive. Therefore, Stegall’s public-policy claim was not preempted. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine if there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding Stegall’s claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. View "Stegall V Resource Technology Corporation" on Justia Law

Cephia Hayes, an employee of the New Jersey Department of Human Services (NJDHS) since 2004, alleged that her supervisor began sexually harassing her in 2016 and retaliated against her when she rebuffed his advances. In October 2019, Hayes filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC decided not to pursue her case and communicated this decision to Hayes's lawyer via email on March 11, 2020, stating that a right-to-sue letter would be issued. The EEOC also posted the right-to-sue letter to its online portal on the same day.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of NJDHS, ruling that Hayes's Title VII claims were time-barred. The court determined that the 90-day filing period began either when the EEOC emailed Hayes's lawyer or when the right-to-sue letter was posted to the EEOC's online portal. Consequently, the court found that Hayes's lawsuit, filed on November 24, 2020, was untimely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that the March 11 email from the EEOC to Hayes's lawyer did not start the 90-day clock because it was not equivalent to a right-to-sue letter. The court also ruled that the posting of the right-to-sue letter to the EEOC's online portal did not suffice to start the 90-day period without direct communication to Hayes or her lawyer. The court found that Hayes had presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that she received the right-to-sue letter three days after it was mailed, creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the timeliness of her lawsuit. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hayes v. New Jersey Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Danny Lopez, an airline fuel technician, filed a wage-and-hour lawsuit under California law against his employer, Menzies Aviation (USA), Inc. Lopez alleged that Menzies violated state requirements for meal periods, rest periods, overtime wages, minimum wages, and other employment conditions. Menzies sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement Lopez signed as part of his employment.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Menzies' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that Lopez, as a transportation worker engaged in foreign or interstate commerce, was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) under 9 U.S.C. § 1. The court reasoned that Lopez’s role in fueling airplanes used in interstate and foreign commerce was integral to the transportation process, thus qualifying him for the exemption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that a fuel technician who places fuel in planes used for foreign and interstate commerce is a transportation worker engaged in commerce. The court emphasized that such a worker plays a direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders. The court clarified that there is no requirement for the worker to have hands-on contact with goods or be directly involved in their transportation to fall within the FAA exemption. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Lopez was exempt from the arbitration requirements of the FAA and affirmed the district court’s denial of Menzies' motion to compel arbitration. View "LOPEZ V. AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC." on Justia Law

The claimant, a New Hampshire resident, was employed by a Vermont corporation with its principal place of business in New Hampshire. His job required traveling between New Hampshire and Vermont job sites. On September 13, 2022, while working at the New Hampshire facility, the claimant injured his hand. He filed for workers' compensation benefits with the employer's Vermont insurance carrier, which denied the claim due to lack of jurisdiction.The claimant appealed to the Vermont Department of Labor, arguing that his employment constituted "employment in this State" under 21 V.S.A. § 616(a). Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Commissioner granted summary judgment to the employer, concluding that the claimant did not meet the jurisdictional requirements because he was not hired in, did not reside in, and was not injured in Vermont. The Commissioner also found that the claimant worked more hours in New Hampshire than in Vermont and rejected the claimant's broader interpretation of jurisdiction under the statute.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The Court held that 21 V.S.A. § 616(a) requires an injury to occur in Vermont for jurisdiction to attach, with an exception for injuries outside the state if the worker was hired in Vermont. The Court found that the claimant did not meet these criteria. The Court also noted that the claimant's proposed interpretation would lead to absurd results, potentially extending Vermont's workers' compensation jurisdiction nationwide based on corporate domicile alone. The Court concluded that the Commissioner’s interpretation was consistent with legislative intent and precedent, and thus, Vermont lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claimant’s workers' compensation claim. View "Burnett v. Home Improvement Company of Vermont" on Justia Law