Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Thomas Mooney, the plaintiff, was employed as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) for Dr. Douglas Fife, Heather Fife, and Fife Dermatology, PC, doing business as Vivida Dermatology. Mooney raised concerns about improper billing practices at Vivida. After a conversation with Dr. Ken Landow, a dermatologist from another practice, Vivida terminated Mooney's employment, citing unauthorized disclosure of confidential information in violation of his employment agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Vivida on all three of Mooney's claims: False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that Mooney's reporting of billing irregularities did not put Vivida on notice of potentially protected conduct under the FCA. It also found that Mooney had violated the confidentiality provision of his employment agreement and that his claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing failed because he did not argue that Vivida literally complied with the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment. The appellate court held that the district court erred in applying the relevant substantive law for Mooney's FCA retaliation claim and failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mooney for his breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. The Ninth Circuit clarified that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to FCA retaliation claims and that the Moore test for protected conduct continues to apply following the 2009 amendment to the FCA. The court concluded that Mooney engaged in protected conduct, satisfied the notice requirement, and established genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Vivida's reasons for his termination were pretextual. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MOONEY V. FIFE" on Justia Law

Michael Hermalyn, a former employee of DraftKings, left his position to join a rival company, Fanatics, based in California. DraftKings, headquartered in Massachusetts, claimed that Hermalyn's new role violated a noncompete agreement he had signed, which included a Massachusetts choice-of-law provision and a one-year noncompete clause. DraftKings sued Hermalyn in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for breach of the noncompete agreement.The district court sided with DraftKings, applying Massachusetts law to determine the enforceability of the noncompete agreement. The court found the noncompete enforceable and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Hermalyn from competing against DraftKings in the United States for one year. Hermalyn appealed, arguing that California law, which generally bans noncompetes, should apply instead of Massachusetts law. Alternatively, he argued that if Massachusetts law applied, the injunction should exclude California.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the district judge abused her discretion in granting the preliminary injunction and whether she made any legal errors in applying Massachusetts law. The appellate court found that Massachusetts law was correctly applied, noting that Massachusetts generally respects choice-of-law provisions unless they violate a fundamental policy of another state with a materially greater interest. The court concluded that Hermalyn failed to demonstrate that California's interest in banning noncompetes was materially greater than Massachusetts's interest in enforcing them.The First Circuit also upheld the scope of the preliminary injunction, rejecting Hermalyn's argument to exclude California. The court reasoned that excluding California would undermine the effectiveness of the injunction, as Hermalyn's role involved interacting with clients in states where online sports betting is legal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision and awarded costs to DraftKings. View "DraftKings Inc. v. Hermalyn" on Justia Law

Art Iron, Inc. faced a lawsuit from the Board of Trustees of the Shopmen’s Local 499 Pension Plan seeking over one million dollars in withdrawal liability under ERISA. The key issue was whether Robert Schlatter, Art Iron’s sole shareholder, and his wife, Mary Schlatter, were personally liable for this withdrawal liability due to their operation of businesses allegedly under common control with Art Iron.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of the Board, finding both Robert and Mary Schlatter personally liable. The court determined that Robert’s consulting business and Mary’s jewelry-making activities were trades or businesses under common control with Art Iron, thus making them jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment regarding Robert Schlatter, agreeing that his consulting business was a trade or business under common control with Art Iron. The court applied the Groetzinger test, which considers whether the activity is continuous and regular and primarily for income or profit, and found that Robert’s consulting business met these criteria.However, the court reversed the district court’s judgment regarding Mary Schlatter. It found that her jewelry-making activities did not constitute a trade or business under the Groetzinger test, as her activities lacked the necessary continuity and regularity in 2017, the year of Art Iron’s withdrawal from the Plan. Consequently, Mary Schlatter was not personally liable for the withdrawal liability.The Sixth Circuit thus affirmed the district court’s judgment as to Robert Schlatter and reversed and remanded the judgment as to Mary Schlatter. View "Shopmen’s Local No 499, Bd of Trustees v. Art Iron, Inc." on Justia Law

A former employee, Campbell, filed a putative class action lawsuit against her employer, Sunshine Behavioral Health, LLC, alleging wage and hour violations. Campbell claimed that employees were not paid proper overtime, were required to work through meal and rest breaks without compensation, were not paid minimum wage, and were not paid in a timely manner. Sunshine initially proceeded with litigation and agreed to participate in mediation. However, Sunshine later claimed to have discovered an arbitration agreement signed by Campbell, which included a class action waiver.The Superior Court of Orange County found that Sunshine had waived its right to compel arbitration. Despite allegedly discovering the arbitration agreement in November 2022, Sunshine continued to engage in mediation discussions and did not inform Campbell or the court of its intent to compel arbitration until March 2023. Sunshine's delay and conduct were deemed inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, leading the court to conclude that Sunshine had waived its right to arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that Sunshine had waived its right to arbitration. The court noted that Sunshine's actions, including agreeing to mediation on a class-wide basis and delaying the motion to compel arbitration, were inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The court emphasized that Sunshine's conduct demonstrated an intentional abandonment of the right to arbitrate, thus affirming the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Campbell v. Sunshine Behavioral Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Marla Knudsen and William Dutra, representing a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against MetLife Group, Inc. They alleged that MetLife, as the administrator and fiduciary of the MetLife Options & Choices Plan, misappropriated $65 million in drug rebates from 2016 to 2021. Plaintiffs claimed this misappropriation led to higher out-of-pocket costs for Plan participants, including increased insurance premiums.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the case for lack of standing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and individualized injury. It reasoned that the plaintiffs had no legal right to the general pool of Plan assets and had not shown that they did not receive their promised benefits. The court found the plaintiffs' claims that they paid excessive out-of-pocket costs to be speculative and lacking factual support.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to establish an injury-in-fact, as their allegations of increased out-of-pocket costs were speculative and not supported by concrete facts. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide specific allegations showing how the misappropriated drug rebates directly caused their increased costs. The court emphasized that financial harm must be actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, to satisfy Article III standing requirements. Consequently, the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their ERISA claims. View "Knudsen v. MetLife Group Inc" on Justia Law

In October 2020, Elliot Fama, employed by Sanford Contracting, was working on a project in Scarborough, Maine. After work, he and his co-worker, Robert Clarke, consumed alcohol at a hotel and a tavern. Later, in the hotel parking lot, Clarke struck Mr. Fama, causing him to fall and sustain fatal injuries. Laureen Fama, Mr. Fama’s widow, settled a workers’ compensation claim in Massachusetts for $400,000.Laureen Fama then filed a lawsuit in Cumberland County Superior Court against Bob’s LLC, which operated the tavern, and Clarke. She alleged liquor liability, wrongful death, loss of consortium, and battery. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the workers’ compensation settlement precluded the lawsuit. The Superior Court denied these motions, leading to the current appeal.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It held that under Maine’s Workers’ Compensation Act (MWCA), Ms. Fama’s settlement barred her from suing Clarke, as the Act’s immunity provisions extend to co-employees. Consequently, Clarke was exempt from the lawsuit. The court further held that because Clarke could not be retained as a defendant, the claims against Bob’s LLC failed under the “named and retained” provisions of Maine’s Liquor Liability Act (MLLA).The court vacated the Superior Court’s order denying summary judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Bob’s LLC and Clarke. View "Fama v. Bob's LLC" on Justia Law

In 2017, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (the Union) initiated proceedings against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) in federal district court. The Union contested Amtrak’s refusal to use Union-represented signalmen in a newly acquired building. The district court sent the case to mandatory arbitration under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The National Railroad Adjustment Board (the Board) dismissed the claim, stating it lacked jurisdiction because the Union was seeking relief based on hypothetical facts.The district court vacated the Board’s award and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the Board did not consider or interpret the parties’ agreement. Amtrak appealed, arguing that the award should be upheld under the highly deferential judicial standard of review because it was at least arguably based on rail industry common law and Rule 56 of the collective bargaining agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court found that the Board’s award should be vacated because it did not decide the dispute based on the parties’ contract. Instead, the Board relied on legal principles governing federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction, which are outside the scope of the Board’s authority. The court emphasized that the Board must interpret the contract and cannot base its decisions on external legal principles unrelated to the contract. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the National Railroad Adjustment Board for proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation" on Justia Law

Maria Miller, a correctional officer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), was injured in 2016 while on a temporary assignment. After her worker’s compensation benefits were exhausted in 2018, CDCR placed her on unpaid leave. CDCR later offered her a medical demotion to an alternative position, which she did not accept, citing a newly disclosed mental disability. Miller has remained on unpaid leave since then. In 2020, she sued CDCR under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.The Superior Court of Riverside County granted summary judgment in favor of CDCR, concluding that CDCR was entitled to summary adjudication on each cause of action. The court found that Miller could not perform the essential functions of her job as a correctional officer due to her disabilities and that CDCR had offered reasonable accommodations, which she either accepted or refused.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that CDCR had met its burden by showing that Miller could not perform the essential duties of her job and that reasonable accommodations were offered. The court also found that Miller failed to produce evidence of a material dispute of fact regarding her ability to perform her job or the reasonableness of the accommodations offered. The court concluded that CDCR was not liable for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, or retaliation. The judgment was affirmed. View "Miller v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

A police officer with over thirty-three years of experience, including seventeen years with the Blue Ash Police Department, was terminated at age sixty-one. The officer alleged that his performance record was nearly perfect until a new police chief took over, after which he faced increased scrutiny and discipline. The officer was assigned a traffic study, typically not given to patrol officers, and disciplined multiple times for minor infractions, including failing to turn on his microphone during traffic stops and not responding promptly to a noise complaint. The final incident leading to his termination involved a delayed response to a medical emergency, which led to an investigation uncovering multiple policy violations, including untruthfulness.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The court concluded that the officer failed to provide sufficient evidence that his termination was due to age discrimination. The court also found that the officer abandoned his other claims by not addressing them in his brief opposing summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding the age discrimination claim, holding that the officer could not show that age was the "but-for" reason for his termination. However, the court reversed the district court's decision on the hostile work environment claim. The appellate court found that the officer presented enough evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on age. The court noted that the officer's allegations of increased scrutiny, disproportionate discipline, and demeaning assignments could support a hostile work environment claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim against the City of Blue Ash. View "McNeal v. City of Blue Ash" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a pedestrian, was injured when struck by a car driven by Ralph Wilson, who had been driving for Uber earlier that evening. Wilson had turned his Uber driver app to "offline" about four minutes before the accident and more than a mile away from the accident site. Wilson testified that he had finished driving for Uber for the night and was on his way home from McDonald's when the accident occurred. The plaintiff argued that inconsistencies in Wilson's testimony and Uber's records created a triable issue of fact regarding whether Wilson was still operating as an Uber driver at the time of the accident.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted summary judgment in favor of Uber Technologies, Inc. and related companies, finding that Wilson was acting in his personal capacity and not as an Uber driver at the time of the accident. The court deemed the plaintiff's arguments speculative and irrelevant to establishing whether Wilson was acting within the scope of his employment with Uber at the time of the incident.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the undisputed material facts demonstrated that Wilson was not acting as an Uber driver at the time of the accident. The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim that Wilson intended to switch back to "available" status or that he was driving towards a surge area. The court concluded that the inconsistencies in Wilson's testimony were immaterial to the issue of his status at the time of the accident. Therefore, the judgment in favor of the Uber parties was affirmed. View "Kim v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law