Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Dr. Susan O'Horo, an interventional radiologist and Director of Quality and Safety at Boston Medical Center Corporation (BMC), alleged that she faced discriminatory and retaliatory actions at her workplace. She claimed that her efforts to report safety concerns, particularly regarding a colleague, Dr. Mikhail Higgins, were met with hostility and that she was ultimately forced to resign due to the intolerable work environment.In the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Dr. O'Horo filed claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, and the Massachusetts Health Care Whistleblower Act (MHCWA). The defendants, including BMC, Boston University Medical Center Radiologists, Inc. (BUMCR), and Dr. Jorge Soto, moved for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion, and the district court adopted this recommendation, dismissing all of Dr. O'Horo's claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Dr. O'Horo failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination or retaliation. The court found that the alleged adverse actions, such as the reassignment of her duties and the scheduling of reviews, did not constitute materially adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court concluded that the hostile work environment claim was insufficient as the workplace was not objectively hostile or abusive. The aiding and abetting claim under Chapter 151B was dismissed as it was derivative of the failed discrimination claims. Lastly, the court held that Dr. O'Horo did not establish a prima facie case under the MHCWA, as she failed to show that the actions taken against her were retaliatory. View "O'Horo v. Boston Medical Center Corporation" on Justia Law

Catherine Kuo was killed while volunteering at a food distribution event organized by the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). Her family and estate sued DUSD for negligence and premises liability, alleging failure to implement and communicate safety protocols. DUSD moved for summary judgment, arguing that Labor Code section 3364.5, which deems school volunteers as employees entitled to workers' compensation benefits, barred the plaintiffs' claims.The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, granted DUSD’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that section 3364.5 applied, providing that workers' compensation was the sole remedy for any injury, including death, sustained by volunteers while performing their duties. The court found that the statute's plain language and legislative history supported this interpretation, and thus, it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the term "any injury" in section 3364.5 unambiguously includes fatal injuries. The court also determined that DUSD’s resolution, which declared volunteers entitled to workers' compensation benefits, satisfied the statutory requirement, even though it did not explicitly use the word "deemed." The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the statute did not apply because DUSD did not treat its volunteers as employees in practice, noting that the statute did not require such conduct.The appellate court concluded that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of DUSD, affirming that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy for the plaintiffs' claims. View "Kuo v. Dublin Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Judy Brown, a biracial woman, was hired by Conagra Brands, Inc. in October 1997. After a workplace injury in 2015, she became disabled and filed a workers' compensation claim in 2017. Conagra temporarily transferred her to a different position as an accommodation and continued paying her at the higher rate until July 2020, when her work restrictions became permanent, and her pay was reduced. Following the death of a colleague, Conagra posted job openings, and Brown applied for a position but was not selected. She was assigned to less favorable shifts and subsequently filed discrimination charges. Brown was fired in December 2021 and sued Conagra, alleging race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and violation of Nebraska common law.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted Conagra’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Brown did not challenge the district court’s finding that her race and disability discrimination claims based on the July 2020 pay reduction were time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Brown failed to plead sufficient facts to support her claims. Specifically, she did not provide enough details to infer race discrimination, did not plausibly allege a disability under the ADA or NFEPA, and did not establish a causal connection for her retaliation claims. Additionally, the court found that Brown did not state a plausible claim for common law unlawful retaliation, as she did not allege any immediate precipitating events or facts that could infer a causal nexus between her workers' compensation claim and the adverse employment actions. View "Brown v. Conagra Brands, Inc." on Justia Law

Hood River Distillers, Inc. operates a liquor distillery in Oregon, employing approximately twenty-five unionized employees represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 670. In January 2019, the Union and Hood River began negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. The negotiations focused on health insurance, wages, and other benefits. Despite several bargaining sessions, the parties did not reach an agreement, and Hood River unilaterally implemented its final offer in May 2020, leading to a strike by the Union.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Hood River violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by unilaterally changing employment terms without reaching an impasse in negotiations. Hood River argued that the Union engaged in unjustified delay tactics, justifying its unilateral actions. The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled against Hood River, and the NLRB affirmed the ALJ's decision, finding that the Union's actions did not constitute unjustified delay tactics and that no impasse had been reached.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's conclusion that Hood River acted unlawfully by unilaterally implementing its March 30 offer. The court found that the Union's insistence on in-person mediation during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic was not unreasonable and did not constitute unjustified delay tactics. The court also noted that Hood River failed to preserve its challenge to the remedy awarded by the NLRB.The court denied Hood River's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement, affirming the NLRB's decision that Hood River violated the NLRA by unilaterally changing employment terms without reaching an impasse and without justification based on the Union's conduct. View "Hood River Distillers, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Melissa Mandell-Brown filed a complaint against Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Zamaneh Zamanian, asserting 16 causes of action, including claims for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Labor Code, as well as common law claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by a separate statement of 161 undisputed facts, attorney declarations, and witness declarations. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion or a separate statement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after plaintiff failed to file the required opposition or separate statement, despite being granted two continuances. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and concluded that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of her causes of action. Plaintiff appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), by granting the motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite separate statement. The appellate court noted that the trial court had the discretion to grant the motion for summary judgment when the opposing party fails to comply with the requirement of a separate statement. Given the complexity of the case and the plaintiff's failure to submit any opposition or appear at the hearing, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc." on Justia Law

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) operates a space launch business and a global satellite-based internet service called Starlink. In June 2022, a group of SpaceX employees sent an open letter demanding certain actions from the company and solicited support through a survey. SpaceX discharged four employees involved in the letter's distribution for violating company policies. Additional employees were later discharged for lying during a leak investigation and for unrelated performance issues. These employees filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in November 2022, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act.The NLRB Regional Director found merit in the claims and issued an order consolidating the employees' cases with a hearing set for March 2024. SpaceX sued the NLRB in the Southern District of Texas (SDTX) in January 2024, challenging the NLRB's structure as unconstitutional and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The NLRB moved to transfer the case to the Central District of California (CDCA), arguing improper venue. The SDTX granted the transfer motion in February 2024. SpaceX petitioned for an emergency writ of mandamus to vacate the transfer order, which was initially stayed but later denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. SpaceX argued that the district court effectively denied its motion for a preliminary injunction by failing to rule on it by May 2, 2024. The Fifth Circuit found that SpaceX did not demonstrate the "serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence" required for an immediate appeal. The court noted that participating in the administrative proceeding did not constitute irreparable harm and that the district court did not act unreasonably in waiting to resolve procedural challenges. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed SpaceX's appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Kirstyn Paige Bashaw was employed as the Director of Social Services at Majestic Care of Whitehall, a skilled nursing home and residential facility in Ohio, from November 2021 until her termination in March 2022. Her role involved managing the Social Service department and attending daily meetings. During her tenure, Bashaw was frequently late or absent without authorization, and she raised concerns about resident care and alleged inappropriate behavior by her manager, Edward Beatrice. Bashaw also secretly recorded work meetings and discussed her intention to leave the job with a Human Resources representative.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of Majestic Care, finding that the company had provided three non-pretextual reasons for Bashaw’s termination: her surreptitious recording of work meetings, her attendance issues, and her expressed desire to leave the job. The court did not find it necessary to resolve whether a fourth reason, related to a resident's readmission, was pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Majestic Care had legitimate, non-pretextual reasons for terminating Bashaw. Specifically, the court found that Bashaw’s secret recordings undermined trust and posed legal risks, her attendance issues were valid grounds for termination, and Majestic Care reasonably believed she no longer wished to work there. The court concluded that these reasons were sufficient to defeat Bashaw’s retaliation claim under Title VII and Ohio law. View "Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall" on Justia Law

Douglas Ramsey, the plaintiff, sued his former employer, Sheet Pile, L.L.C., for breach of his employment agreement and a promissory note under which he had loaned the company money. Sheet Pile counterclaimed for breach of the employment agreement and sought an injunction to force Ramsey to return confidential information. Ramsey largely succeeded at trial, receiving an award for prejudgment interest and the denial of Sheet Pile’s requested injunction. Sheet Pile appealed, challenging the jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, the grant of prejudgment interest, and the denial of injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas oversaw the initial trial. The jury found in favor of Ramsey, awarding him the final $5,000 of his salary and $155,878.47 in damages on the loan. The jury also found that Ramsey breached the employment agreement but was not liable due to Sheet Pile’s prior material breach. After the trial, the district court awarded Ramsey prejudgment interest and denied Sheet Pile’s request for a permanent injunction. Sheet Pile filed a post-judgment motion reiterating its arguments, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions on the jury instructions and the finding of prior material breach. However, it vacated the award of prejudgment interest, finding that the jury had improperly included interest in its damages award, leading to a double recovery. The court remanded the case for the district court to offer a remittitur based on the amount owed on the loan as of the date Ramsey filed suit. The court also instructed the district court to consider an injunction requiring Ramsey to return any documents containing confidential information. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ramsey v. Sheet Pile" on Justia Law

Annette Rodriguez, the plaintiff, served as the Director of the City of Corpus Christi and Nueces County Public Health District. Her salary was split between the City and the County. In 2019, the City increased her salary to 90% of the market rate. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Rodriguez requested and initially received overtime pay, but the City later stopped these payments. Rodriguez faced several allegations of policy violations and creating a hostile work environment, leading to a disciplinary memorandum. Despite a positive evaluation from the County, the City terminated her in 2022 and hired a new director.Rodriguez sued the City in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, claiming violations under the Equal Pay Act, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed her Section 1983 claim on the pleadings, finding she did not allege a constitutionally protected interest in continued employment. The court granted summary judgment to the City on the remaining claims, concluding Rodriguez was exempt from FLSA overtime pay requirements, did not establish the equal-work or equal-pay prongs of her EPA claim, and failed to identify a proper comparator for her Title VII claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's rulings, agreeing that Rodriguez did not engage in protected activity under the FLSA, failed to identify a proper comparator for her Title VII and EPA claims, and did not establish pretext for retaliation. The court also found that Rodriguez remained an exempt employee despite receiving additional overtime pay temporarily. The court concluded that the City paid Rodriguez on a salary basis, maintaining her exempt status under the FLSA. View "Rodriguez v. City of Corpus Christi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an intelligence analyst with the FBI, was required to complete the FBI Basic Field Training Course (BFTC), which included in-person training sessions and various tasks and assessments, some of which were scheduled outside working hours. Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that they were not compensated for all overtime hours worked during the BFTC.The United States Court of Federal Claims denied the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that the OPM regulation 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(3), which bars overtime compensation for entry-level training, was invalid. The court reasoned that the regulation was inconsistent with the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations and that the government failed to justify the categorical rule against overtime compensation for entry-level training. The court certified the validity of the regulation for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the OPM regulation 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(3) is valid. The court reasoned that the differences between OPM and DOL regulations are justified by the need to accommodate the differences between federal and non-federal employment, particularly considering the Government Employees Training Act (GETA), which generally prohibits overtime pay for training for federal employees. The court concluded that OPM's regulation is a legitimate policy choice consistent with both the FLSA and GETA. The case was remanded to determine whether the OPM regulation is consistent with the FLSA. View "DOE NO. 1 v. US " on Justia Law