Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-appellant Robert Parsons worked for Defendant-respondent Estenson Logistics, LLC (Estenson) , and Estenson paid its employees weekly. Estenson’s pay period ran from Sunday through the following Saturday. It paid its employees on the second Monday after the end of the pay period, which was nine calendar days after the end of the pay period. If Monday was a holiday, it paid its employees on Tuesday, which was 10 calendar days after the end of the pay period. California Labor Code section 204(d) provided that wages for employees who are paid weekly were deemed timely if paid “not more than seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period.” What happens if the seventh calendar day falls on a Saturday? Parsons argued the wages had to be paid on that Saturday. Estenson argued the wages could be paid the following Monday, because Code of Civil Procedure section 12a provided that weekends were holidays, and further provided, “If the last day for the performance of any act provided or required by law to be performed within a specified period of time is a holiday, then that period is hereby extended to and including the next day that is not a holiday.” The trial court agreed with Estenson, and granted summary judgment in its favor on a wage and hour claim brought by Parsons. To this, the Court of Appeal also agreed, and thus affirmed. View "Parsons v. Estenson Logistics, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) granting in part and denying in part Petitioner's motion for summary judgment, holding that the WCC erred in part.At issue on appeal was whether the WCC erred when it ruled that the aggregate wages of Petitioner, a disabled worker, calculated at the time of injury, are used to determine Petitioner's permanent partial disability (PPD) benefit rate regardless of Petitioner's actual wage loss at maximum healing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the WCC erred by ruling that Petitioner's PPD indemnity benefit rate was aggregated from both of her time-of-injury employments when she was only precluded from one employment upon reaching maximum medical improvement. View "Barnhart v. Mont. State Fund" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) that Respondent was entitled to workers' compensation benefits, holding that Respondent was not entitled to relief on his claims on appeal.A licensed psychologist diagnosed Respondent, a former deputy sheriff for Carlton County, with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A compensation judge ruled that Respondent was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits because a subsequent psychological evaluation requested by the County resulted in a diagnosis of major depressive disorder but not PTSD. The WCCA reversed, holding (1) under Minn. Stat. 176.011, subd. 15(e), deputy sheriffs are entitled to a presumption that PTSD is an occupational disease if they present a diagnosis of PTSD, regardless of whether their employer offers a competing diagnosis; and (2) Respondent was entitled to the benefit of the presumption that he had a compensable occupational disease, and the County failed to rebut the presumption. View "Juntunen v. Carlton County" on Justia Law

An elementary school nurse who unsuccessfully attempted to save the life of a choking child sought workers’ compensation benefits for mental health problems she attributed to the incident. She argued that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to exposure to the child’s bodily fluids and resulting risk of disease and to the mental stress of the incident. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claims, concluding that her exposure to bodily fluids was not a sufficient physical injury to trigger a presumption of compensability and that the mental stress of the incident was not sufficiently extraordinary or unusual to merit compensation. The Board was most persuaded by the opinion of the employer’s medical expert that the nurse’s mental health problems were the result of a pre-existing mental health condition and were not caused by the incident. The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed. After review, the Alaska Supreme Court found: (1) the Board failed to recognize the link between exposure to bodily fluids and mental distress over the risk of serious disease, which under Alaska precedent was enough to establish a presumption that the mental distress is compensable; and (2) the Board failed to consider the particular details of the child’s death and the nurse’s involvement when it concluded as a general matter that the stress of responding to a choking incident at school was not sufficiently extraordinary to merit compensation for mental injury. However, because the Board found in the alternative that the incident was not the cause of the nurse’s mental health problems, and because both the Commission and the Alaska Supreme Court had to respect the Board’s credibility determinations and the weight it gave conflicting evidence, the denial of benefits was affirmed. View "Patterson v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District" on Justia Law

Demo Services employs product demonstrators, who are classified as “part-time, nonexempt, hourly employees eligible for overtime pay according to state and federal law.” Demonstrators are generally assigned to a single Costco. There is office space within each Costco for demonstrators. Espinoza, employed as a demonstrator from 2011-2016, received a “Demonstrator Handbook.” Espinoza worked four days a week and her regular shift lasted for six hours. Upon arriving at Costco, Espinoza went to the office, clocked in, reviewed her assignment, got her supplies, set up her cart, went to the floor near the product, and started demonstrating the product. Espinoza could only leave her demonstration area to take a break when an assigned “breaker” relieved her. At the end of her shift, Espinoza had 15 minutes to return her cart to the office, wash her dishes, store her supplies, then clock out, entering her lunch break time. Espinoza filed a class action, alleging Labor Code violations.The trial court granted Demo summary judgment, reasoning that the outside salesperson exemption applied because Espinoza did not work at a site owned or controlled by her employer. The court of appeal reversed. An employee working at a fixed site not owned or leased by the employer is not subject to the outside salesperson exemption where the employer controls the employee’s hours and working conditions. Demo assigned Espinoza to work a fixed site, within a small, designated area, and controlled her conditions of work. View "Espinoza v. Warehouse Demo Services, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2011, plaintiff R. Kemp was convicted, released from prison, and placed on parole. In 2020, Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) offered Kemp a job in Sacramento. Defendant Accurate Background LLC (Accurate) provided a background report to Amazon revealing Kemp’s criminal conviction. Amazon then withdrew its job offer. Because Kemp’s 2011 conviction predated the 2020 report by more than seven years, he filed a complaint alleging Accurate: (1) violated the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA); (2) violated the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA); and (3) derivatively violated the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Accurate filed a demurrer: Kemp’s parole ended in 2014, which predated the 2020 report by less than seven years. Accurate argued under the ICRAA and the CCRAA, “the term ‘parole’ refers to the end of the parole period,” thus barring liability. Alternatively, Accurate argued the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) preempted the state ICRAA, and therefore Kemp’s ICRAA claim was barred as a matter of law. The trial court overruled Accurate’s demurrer, in part, finding “the plain meaning of ‘from the date of . . . parole’ refers to the start date of conditional release.” The court sustained Accurate’s demurrer, in part, finding “the FCRA preempts the ICRAA claim.” Accurate and Kemp both filed petitions for extraordinary writ relief to the Court of Appeal. The Court held the phrase "from the date of parole" referred to the start date of parole, and the FCRA did not preempt Kemp’s ICRAA claim. Thus, the appellate court directed the trial court to vacate its prior order, which partially sustained Accurate’s demurrer, and to issue a new order overruling the demurrer in its entirety. View "Kemp v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The employers agreed that for the duration of two collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), they would make pension contributions on behalf of covered employees to the Pension Fund. Both CBAs contained “evergreen clauses” that extended them a year at a time until either party provided timely written notice expressing an “intention to terminate.” Both were to expire in January 2019. After the window for timely notice of intention to terminate on that date, the employers and the union signed new CBAs requiring pension contributions to a different fund beginning in February 2019. The employers notified the Fund that they were ceasing contributions, relying on letters the union sent in November 2018.The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the Fund’s lawsuit. Those letters did not express the union’s intent to terminate the existing CBAs, so as to satisfy the evergreen clause's termination procedure. The letters did not mention termination. They noted the date that the CBAs would expire and expressed a desire to meet to negotiate new agreements; neither of these points communicated an intent to terminate the existing agreements. In the context of an evergreen clause, expiration and termination are distinct concepts. A desire to negotiate a new contract is quite consistent with a desire to leave the existing agreement in place until a new deal is reached. The old agreements renewed under the evergreen clauses; the employers remained obligated to contribute to the Fund for one more year. View "Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Zenith Logistics, Inc." on Justia Law

KDE, a thoroughbred racehorse training and care operation, has four locations in Texas, New York, and Kentucky. KDE employed 120-150 employees, including hotwalkers, responsible for walking and bathing the horses to cool them down, and grooms, who prep the horses for training. The hotwalkers work every day of the week from 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Some hotwalkers work additional hours every other day, typically from 3:00-4:30 p.m. On average, the hotwalkers work 44.25 hours per week. Grooms also work every day of the week, usually, from 5:00-11:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to approximately 4:30 p.m. Grooms typically work between 48.5-52.5 hours per week. Most of the employees did not submit timesheets for the additional hours worked, while others submitted inaccurate time sheets; it is impossible to determine how many hours each employee worked. The Department of Labor (DOL) sought an injunction and damages for KDE’s alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, for failing to pay employees the federal minimum wage, for failing to pay employees overtime wages, and for failing to keep adequate and accurate employment records.The Sixth Circuit affirmed a judgment in favor of DOL on the overtime claims. The district court’s grant of summary judgment on the willfulness issue in favor of KDE was inappropriate; genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether KDE willfully failed to pay its employees in compliance with the FLSA. View "Walsh v. KDE Equine, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus sought by Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to reverse its decision granting T.A.'s application for benefits, holding that the Commission did not abuse its discretion.Travis Gelhausen died shortly after getting into an accident while driving a truck for Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. T.A. applied for benefits on behalf of her and Gelhausen's minor daughter, S.G., for Gelhausen's loss of the use of his arms and legs before his death. The Commission granted the application. Waste Management sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission either to vacate its award or to limit the award. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission's award was proper. View "State ex rel. Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

Thomas Burckhard appealed a judgment entered following consideration of Larson Latham Huettl LLP’s motion for summary judgment. Burckhard began employment with Larson Latham Huettl LLP (hereinafter LLH) in January 2019. In May 2019 Burckhard signed an employment contract, under which Burckhard agreed he would receive compensation based upon projected hours billed. Any overpayment resulting from a deficiency between the projected hours he would bill and the actual hours he billed would be considered a debt owed by Burckhard to LLH. Burckhard’s employment with LLH ended on August 15, 2020. At that time, Burckhard was paid for 697.88 projected billable hours more than his actual billable hours resulting in an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $29,885.38. LLH filed suit alleging breach of contract seeking to recover the excess compensation plus pre-judgment interest. The district court granted LLH’s motion finding there were no issues of material fact and LLH was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Burckhard appealed, arguing summary judgment was improper because the contract’s purpose was frustrated, the contract is unconscionable, the contract fails for lack of consideration, LLH waived its right to obtain payment, there is a genuine dispute as to the amount of the damages, and the district court abused its discretion in denying Burckhard additional time for discovery. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined Burckhard failed to prove there was a genuine dispute as to any material fact. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of LLH and properly dismissed all of Burckhard’s affirmative defenses. View "Larson Latham Huettl, LLP v. Burckhard" on Justia Law