Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

A group of former employees, most of whom are Black, brought claims against their former employer, an IT company, and its parent corporation. They alleged race discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation for opposing discrimination, citing actions such as terminations, denials of promotions, and workplace policies they believed targeted Black employees. The plaintiffs described being subjected to stricter rules, surveillance, and less favorable treatment compared to non-Black employees. One plaintiff, who is white, also alleged retaliation for supporting his Black colleagues.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment to the employer on all hostile work environment claims and on certain discrimination and retaliation claims, finding insufficient evidence of an “ultimate employment decision” as required by then-controlling precedent. The court also excluded some witness testimony. At trial, a jury found for nine plaintiffs on discrimination and retaliation claims, awarding substantial damages. However, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to the employer on most claims, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts, and to the parent company, concluding it was not an “integrated enterprise” with the employer. The court also granted a new trial on two retaliation claims, finding the verdicts contrary to the weight of the evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It vacated the summary judgment on certain discrimination and retaliation claims, remanding those for further proceedings in light of new precedent that broadened the definition of adverse employment actions. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in all other respects, including the grants of JMOL, the new trial orders, the exclusion of witness testimony, and the finding that the parent company was not liable as an integrated enterprise. View "Yarbrough v. SlashSupport" on Justia Law

Yellow Corporation, a major trucking company, ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy in 2023. As a result, it withdrew from several multiemployer pension plans, triggering withdrawal liability—an amount owed to the pension plans to cover unfunded vested benefits for employees. The pension plans, which had received substantial federal funds under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) to stabilize their finances, filed claims against Yellow’s bankruptcy estate for withdrawal liability. The dispute centered on how much of the ARPA funds should be counted as plan assets when calculating Yellow’s liability, as well as whether certain contractual terms could require Yellow to pay a higher withdrawal liability than statutory minimums.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware reviewed the claims. It upheld two regulations issued by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC): the Phase-In Regulation, which requires ARPA funds to be counted as plan assets gradually over time, and the No-Receivables Regulation, which bars plans from counting ARPA funds as assets before they are actually received. The Bankruptcy Court found these regulations to be valid exercises of PBGC’s authority and not arbitrary or capricious. It also ruled that two pension plans could enforce a contractual provision requiring Yellow to pay withdrawal liability at a higher, agreed-upon rate, rather than the rate based solely on its actual contributions.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order. The Third Circuit held that the PBGC’s regulations were valid under ARPA and ERISA, as Congress had expressly delegated authority to the PBGC to set reasonable conditions on the allocation of plan assets and withdrawal liability. The court also held that pension plans could enforce contractual terms requiring higher withdrawal liability, as the statutory scheme sets a floor, not a ceiling, for such liability. View "In re: Yellow Corporation" on Justia Law

Several physicians who were employed by an anesthesia practice left their positions and became employees of a hospital with which their former practice had a service contract. The physicians had previously sold their ownership interests in the practice to another entity, and their employment contracts contained restrictive covenants, including non-compete and non-solicitation provisions. After the hospital indicated it might not renew its contract with the practice, the physicians and hospital administrators began discussing future employment arrangements, retaining legal counsel and entering into a common interest agreement. The hospital ultimately sent notice of nonrenewal, and the physicians resigned and signed employment contracts with the hospital. The anesthesia practice and its parent company sued the physicians and the hospital, alleging breach of contract, tortious interference, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. The hospital also sued the practice, seeking to bar enforcement of the restrictive covenants.The Hillsborough County Superior Court (Northern District) issued several orders during discovery, compelling the hospital and physician defendants to disclose certain communications they claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege and the common interest doctrine, and ordering their counsel to sit for depositions. The court found that the crime-fraud exception to privilege applied to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and tortious interference, and limited the application of the common interest doctrine to communications after litigation was pending. It also ordered disclosure of some privileged communications under a theory of necessity.On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege does not apply to claims of breach of fiduciary duty or tortious interference with contractual relations. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the common interest doctrine did not apply until litigation was pending, but vacated the orders permitting depositions of counsel and requiring disclosure of privileged communications under a necessity theory, remanding those issues for further proceedings. The disposition was affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Atl. Anesthesia, P.A. v. Lehrer" on Justia Law

An airport restaurant and bar manager sustained bilateral knee injuries in 2007 while lifting a beer keg at work. Her right knee required surgery, and she experienced ongoing pain, swelling, and functional limitations in both knees, which affected her ability to return to her previous job and participate in daily activities and hobbies. After vocational rehabilitation, she found sedentary work as a medical coder and biller. Multiple medical evaluations rated her right knee at 5% impairment and her left knee at 0% impairment, based on the AMA Guides.The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Disability Compensation Division awarded her 7% permanent partial disability (PPD) for the right knee and 0% for the left knee. She appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (LIRAB), seeking higher PPD percentages. LIRAB increased the awards to 8% for the right knee and 3% for the left knee, but its chair dissented, advocating for 20% and 5% respectively. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed LIRAB’s majority decision, finding that LIRAB had sufficiently explained its reasoning and properly considered her inability to return to her prior job.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case and found that LIRAB’s findings and conclusions were insufficiently clear to allow meaningful appellate review. The court held that LIRAB’s decision was clearly erroneous and adopted the reasoning of the LIRAB chair’s dissent, awarding 20% PPD for the right knee and 5% for the left knee. The court also held that LIRAB improperly considered vocational rehabilitation and temporary total disability benefits in determining the PPD award. The ICA’s judgment and LIRAB’s decision were vacated in part, and the case was remanded to LIRAB to determine the compensation amount consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. View "Noborikawa v. Host International" on Justia Law

Sylvia Noland was hired by the defendants to work as a leasing agent and sales representative for two properties in Los Angeles. She was promised compensation for administrative work, commissions for securing tenants and booking events, and a monthly draw against earnings. Noland alleged that defendants failed to pay her the agreed amounts, including a substantial commission, minimum wage, overtime, and proper wage statements. She also claimed she was constructively terminated after refusing to participate in leasing activities she believed were unlawful. Her complaint included 25 causes of action, ranging from wage and hour violations to breach of contract and emotional distress.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County first denied defendants’ initial motion for summary judgment on procedural grounds. After a trial continuance due to defense counsel’s medical issues, defendants refiled their summary judgment motion. The trial court overruled plaintiff’s objections to the successive motion, finding it permissible since the prior denial was not on the merits. After considering the parties’ arguments, the court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding Noland was an independent contractor, not entitled to wage protections, and not owed the claimed commission. The court also denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and her requests to reopen discovery, finding no evidence of bad faith or procedural error.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the court had discretion to consider the renewed summary judgment motion and that plaintiff’s substantive arguments lacked merit. The appellate court also imposed a $10,000 sanction on plaintiff’s counsel for filing briefs containing fabricated legal citations generated by AI, directed counsel to serve the opinion on his client, and ordered the clerk to notify the State Bar. Respondents were awarded appellate costs. View "Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P." on Justia Law

A tenured English professor at a public university in Ohio, who identifies as transgender, became involved in discussions about leading the university’s Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality during a period of departmental restructuring. Although the professor expressed interest in directing the Center and was considered a strong candidate, the position was not open as the Center had gone dormant. The professor was offered a partial teaching load reallocation to help develop a new gender-studies major, but after a series of profanity-laden and disparaging social media posts targeting colleagues and administrators, the offer was rescinded. The professor also sought a tenure transfer to the main campus, which was denied by faculty committees after considering collegiality and departmental needs, with no discussion of gender identity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment for the university and individual defendants on all claims. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and concluded that the university’s actions were based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, including the professor’s unprofessional conduct and the department’s academic requirements. The professor appealed, challenging the district court’s rulings on claims of sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and perceived-disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The court held that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination or retaliation, that the professor’s social media posts did not constitute protected speech on matters of public concern under the First Amendment, and that there was insufficient evidence to support a perceived-disability claim. The court clarified that adverse employment actions under Title VII need only cause some harm, but found the university’s reasons for its decisions were not pretextual. View "GPat Patterson v. Kent State University" on Justia Law

Christina Henry, a Licensed Practical Nurse at Southern Ohio Medical Center (SOMC), refused to comply with SOMC’s COVID-19 policy requiring either vaccination or weekly nasopharyngeal testing, citing religious objections. SOMC granted her a religious exemption from vaccination but denied her request for an exemption from all forms of COVID testing. Henry maintained that her religious beliefs prohibited her from undergoing any COVID test, including non-invasive methods, and proposed self-screening as an alternative. After continued refusal to test or vaccinate, SOMC placed her on unpaid leave. Henry did not request alternative testing methods during her leave and later declined to return to SOMC after the testing requirement was lifted.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of SOMC. The court found that Henry’s communications to SOMC indicated she sought exemption from all COVID testing, not just nasopharyngeal testing. It held that accommodating her request would impose an undue hardship on SOMC by endangering vulnerable patient populations. The court also determined that even if Henry had requested saliva testing, this would still constitute an undue hardship due to delays in obtaining test results and reduced effectiveness. Additionally, the court found that Henry failed to show SOMC’s stated reasons for placing her on unpaid leave were pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that Henry did not provide sufficient notice to SOMC of a limited objection to only certain types of testing and that either exempting her from all testing or providing saliva testing would impose an undue hardship on SOMC. The court also held that Henry failed to establish pretext in her retaliation claim. View "Henry v. Southern Ohio Medical Center" on Justia Law

Samantha Graf worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant Technician at Morristown-Hamblen Hospital Association (MHHA). She alleged that during a lunch break on hospital grounds, a security guard employed by a third-party firm raped her. Graf reported the incident to hospital human resources, but after a limited investigation, HR concluded the sexual encounter was consensual. MHHA terminated Graf for violating hospital policy by having intercourse while on the clock and in an unauthorized area. Graf continued to communicate with the security guard after the incident, and both parties disputed the nature of their relationship and the encounter.Graf filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, asserting claims under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), as well as state tort claims. The district court dismissed several claims and one defendant, Shield and Buckler Security, Inc., on statute of limitations grounds. After summary judgment, only Graf’s retaliation claims under Title VII and THRA, and her negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, proceeded to trial. Before trial, the district court ruled on the admissibility of evidence regarding Graf’s sexual history, allowing some communications with the security guard but excluding other evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 412. The jury found in favor of MHHA on all counts, and judgment was entered against Graf.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Graf argued that the district court erred in requiring her to prove she did not consent to the alleged rape for her Title VII retaliation claim, and in admitting evidence of her sexual history. The Sixth Circuit held that a Title VII retaliation plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable and good-faith belief that the conduct opposed was unlawful, and that evidence regarding consent was relevant to this inquiry. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary rulings. The judgment was affirmed. View "Graf v. Morristown-Hamblen Hospital" on Justia Law

Two former employees of a steel plant in Blytheville, Arkansas, brought claims against their employer, alleging racial discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. One employee, who worked at the plant for nearly three decades, was terminated after a series of disciplinary incidents, including an altercation during an internal investigation and subsequent violations of workplace policies. The other employee, who resigned after several years, claimed he was subjected to disparate discipline and racially offensive remarks by supervisors, including an incident where a supervisor referred to himself as a “slave driver” and mimed cracking a whip.After the plaintiffs filed suit in Arkansas state court, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiffs amended their complaint, dropping federal claims and non-diverse parties, leaving only state law claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on all claims, finding insufficient evidence to support the allegations of discrimination, retaliation, or a hostile work environment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination or retaliation, as there was no evidence of similarly situated employees being treated more favorably or of a causal connection between protected activity and adverse employment actions. The court also found that the incidents cited did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment, particularly given the employer’s prompt and effective responses to reported incidents. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. View "Warren v. Nucor Corporation" on Justia Law

An employee at a substance abuse treatment provider alleged that a coworker subjected him to unwanted sexual advances, including sending explicit messages and images, visiting his home uninvited, and making lewd gestures. These actions occurred while the employee was on leave, and none took place at the workplace or during work hours. The employee reported the conduct to his employer’s acting program director and human resources representative. He was told that nothing could be done because the conduct occurred offsite. The HR representative also made a social media post and a sarcastic comment that the employee interpreted as mocking his complaint. The employee, distressed by the employer’s response and the prospect of further interaction with the coworker, resigned shortly after returning to work.The Superior Court of Kern County sustained the employer’s demurrer to the employee’s second amended complaint, dismissing claims for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and negligent hiring, among others. The court found that the alleged harassment was not sufficiently work-related to be actionable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and that the employer’s response did not constitute an adverse employment action or constructive discharge. The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that while the coworker’s conduct was not sufficiently work-related to be imputed to the employer under FEHA, the employer’s response to the employee’s complaint—specifically, its failure to act and the HR representative’s mocking conduct—could support a claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment. The court also found that the claim for failure to prevent harassment was viable, as it depended on the underlying harassment claim. However, the court affirmed dismissal of claims for discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and negligent hiring, finding insufficient allegations of adverse employment action or employer knowledge of employee unfitness. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc." on Justia Law