Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Ramon Vasquez, Jr., sustained injuries while working in a restaurant and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, which was accepted by AmTrust North America, Inc. AmTrust paid $177,335.59 in benefits. Vasquez then initiated third-party litigation against several defendants, resulting in a $400,000 settlement. AmTrust, having intervened as subrogee, sought to recover its lien from the settlement proceeds. Vasquez argued that AmTrust was not entitled to any of the settlement proceeds based on prior case law.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County held that AmTrust did not meaningfully participate in the third-party litigation and thus had to bear a portion of the litigation costs and fees under the Breen formula. The court also ruled that AmTrust could not recover from the portion of the settlement allocated to noneconomic damages, as per Poremba. Consequently, the district court adjudicated AmTrust’s lien at $0 and dismissed its complaint.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found that the Breen formula, which required insurers to bear a portion of litigation costs, conflicted with NRS 616C.215(5). The court held that there is no requirement for an insurer to intervene or participate in the third-party claim to recover on its lien. The court also overruled the Breen formula and Poremba to the extent they conflicted with the statute, stating that an insurer's lien applies to the total proceeds of any recovery, including noneconomic damages. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Amtrust North America, Inc. v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Julia McCreight and Rebecca Wester, were long-term employees of AuburnBank, each with over twenty years of service. McCreight, a mortgage loan originator, and Wester, a loan closer, were both terminated by Michael King, the mortgage department manager. McCreight was fired for sending an unauthorized loan approval letter to a borrower who did not qualify, while Wester was terminated for failing to verify a borrower’s employment status before closing a loan. Both women, over sixty years old at the time of their termination, claimed they were fired due to age and sex discrimination and in retaliation for their complaints about King’s behavior.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of AuburnBank and King on all counts. The court found that neither McCreight nor Wester provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of age and sex discrimination or retaliation. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that McCreight and Wester failed to present enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that their terminations were due to illegal discrimination. The court clarified that mixed-motive theories of liability do not need to be explicitly pleaded in the complaint but must be raised by summary judgment. The court found that McCreight did not raise a mixed-motive theory at the district court level and failed to provide sufficient evidence for her single-motive theory. Similarly, Wester’s evidence was insufficient to support her claims. The court also held that both plaintiffs failed to show causation for their retaliation claims, as there was no evidence that the decision-makers knew about their discrimination complaints. View "McCreight v. AuburnBank" on Justia Law

Kelly Dwyer sought to recover mental health benefits for his minor daughter, E.D., under his employee group benefit health plan issued by United Healthcare Insurance Company. E.D. suffered from severe anorexia nervosa, leading her parents to admit her to a residential treatment facility, Avalon Hills. Initially, United approved full hospitalization benefits, but later reduced the coverage to partial hospitalization and eventually denied further hospitalization benefits, suggesting outpatient treatment instead. Despite E.D.'s doctors' objections and evidence of her ongoing severe symptoms, United maintained its decision.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas conducted a bench trial and ruled in favor of United, finding that the insurer had not improperly withheld benefits. The court's decision was based on the administrative record and the arguments presented during the trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The appellate court found that United's denial of benefits was both substantively and procedurally deficient. Substantively, the court held that United's decision was not supported by concrete evidence and contradicted the medical records. Procedurally, United failed to provide a meaningful dialogue or adequate explanation for its denial, violating ERISA requirements. Additionally, the court found that United improperly failed to process claims at the MultiPlan rate, as it did not respond to Mr. Dwyer's administrative appeal regarding this issue.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for the calculation of damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and other relief for Mr. Dwyer. View "Dwyer v. United Healthcare" on Justia Law

Three black officers, Cedric Green, Darrell Clark, and Reginald Cooper, alleged a history of racial discrimination within the Alexandria Police Department (APD). They claimed that over their decades-long careers, they faced systemic racism, including derogatory comments and unfair treatment. Clark and Cooper were eventually terminated, and Green was demoted. They argued that these actions were retaliatory, following their complaints to HR and the FBI about racial harassment and misconduct within the department.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Alexandria and other defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence to support their claims. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiffs' reliance on their complaint and unsubstantiated assertions did not meet the evidentiary standards required to survive summary judgment. The court also found that the city provided legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse employment actions taken against the plaintiffs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a hostile work environment, as the incidents cited were either not racially motivated or not severe and pervasive enough. The court also found no causal connection between the plaintiffs' protected activities (complaints to HR and the FBI) and the adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court held that the city had legitimate reasons for the terminations and demotion, which the plaintiffs failed to show were pretextual. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under Louisiana's whistleblower statute and their Monell claims against the city, citing a lack of evidence of a discriminatory policy or custom. View "Clark v. City of Alexandria" on Justia Law

Joseph Mayor, a petitioner, sought a writ of mandate to direct the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board) to rescind its order granting Ross Valley Sanitation District’s (Ross Valley) petition for reconsideration of an award of permanent disability. Mayor had been awarded total permanent disability by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) due to an industrial injury. Ross Valley filed a petition for reconsideration, but the Board acted on it more than 60 days after it was filed, which Mayor argued exceeded the Board’s jurisdiction under former section 5909 of the Labor Code.The WCJ issued the award on March 2, 2023, and Ross Valley filed for reconsideration on March 23, 2023. The Board did not act within the 60-day period mandated by former section 5909, which stated that a petition is deemed denied if not acted upon within 60 days. On August 14, 2023, the Board granted the petition for reconsideration, citing administrative irregularities and delays in receiving the petition. Mayor then filed for a writ of mandate, arguing that the Board lost jurisdiction after the 60-day period lapsed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Mayor, referencing the recent decision in Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., which held that the Board’s action after 60 days exceeded its jurisdiction. The court noted that the Legislature had amended section 5909 to start the 60-day deadline from when the Board receives the case file, not when the petition is filed, but this amendment did not apply retroactively. The court granted Mayor’s petition, directing the Board to rescind its orders and confirming that the WCJ’s award of permanent disability was final. View "Mayor v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Sarah Anoke and other employees initiated arbitration proceedings against their employer, X (comprising Twitter, Inc., X Holdings I, Inc., X Holdings Corp., X Corp., and Elon Musk), for employment-related disputes. The arbitration provider issued an invoice for $27,200, which Anoke’s counsel mistakenly paid. The arbitration provider marked the invoice as paid and closed, then refunded the payment and issued a new invoice to X, which X paid within 30 days.Anoke petitioned the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to compel X to pay her arbitration-related attorney fees and costs, arguing that X’s payment was untimely because it was not made within 30 days of the first invoice. The superior court denied the petition, reasoning that since the first invoice was nullified after Anoke’s attorney mistakenly paid it and X timely paid the second invoice, X met the statutory deadline.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the statutory deadline for payment was tied to the due date set by the arbitration provider’s invoice. Since the first invoice was paid (albeit mistakenly) and the second invoice was paid within 30 days, there was no default. The court affirmed the superior court’s order, concluding that the arbitrator acted within its authority by issuing a second invoice and that the statute did not require the arbitrator to reinstate the first invoice after it had been paid and closed. The court also noted that the reasons for a timely payment are irrelevant under the statute. View "Anoke v. Twitter" on Justia Law

In July 1, 2021, the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America sought to represent employees of Hudson Institute of Process Research Incorporated, a legal outsourcing and staffing company. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was tasked with determining the appropriate bargaining unit, excluding supervisors. Hudson and the union disagreed on whether certain personnel, including team leads and revision specialists, were supervisors. Hudson also objected to an employer-wide bargaining unit. The NLRB held a hearing in September 2021, where Hudson argued that these personnel had supervisory authority.The NLRB regional director found that Hudson failed to prove that the disputed personnel were supervisors and approved an employer-wide bargaining unit. Hudson appealed to the NLRB, which denied the request for review. An election was conducted, and the union was certified. Hudson refused to bargain, leading the NLRB to find it had committed an unfair labor practice. Hudson then petitioned for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the NLRB lacked substantial evidence to support its findings that certain personnel were not supervisors. Specifically, the court determined that I-140 team leads, team lead assistants, floating team lead assistants, RFE team leads, and I-485 team leads possessed supervisory authority, including assigning work and recommending rewards, using independent judgment. The court also upheld the NLRB’s certification of an employer-wide bargaining unit but found that the unit improperly included supervisors.The Fifth Circuit granted Hudson’s petition for review, reversed the NLRB’s bargaining order, and denied enforcement, concluding that Hudson did not violate the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with the union. View "Hudson Institute of Process Research Incorporated v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Dignity Health, operating as French Hospital Medical Center, filed a complaint against orthopedic surgeon Troy I. Mounts, M.D., and his corporation to recover an advance paid under their Physician Recruitment Agreement. Mounts filed a cross-complaint alleging retaliation for his complaints about patient care quality, interference with his economic opportunities, and unlawful business practices. Dignity responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court initially denied. The appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case for further consideration.Upon remand, the trial court concluded that Mounts had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court found that Dignity's actions were protected by the litigation privilege, the common interest privilege, and were barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the court granted Dignity's motion to strike the cross-complaint and ordered Mounts to pay Dignity's attorney fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that all of Mounts' claims were based on conduct protected by the litigation privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (b)) and the common interest privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (c)). The court also found that Dignity's actions were immune under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 11137) and that some claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court upheld the trial court's orders granting the motion to strike and awarding attorney fees to Dignity. View "Dignity Health v. Mounts" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued a former employee, the defendant, for breaching a noncompete agreement, violating the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and breaching a common-law duty of confidentiality. The defendant, who had signed a noncompete agreement as a condition of continued employment, later established his own floor coating business and used the plaintiff’s proprietary information to develop competing products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also assisted competitors in developing their products.In a separate but related case, the trial court found the noncompete agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and ruled that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. The court also determined that a payment made to the defendant after his resignation was severance pay, not compensation for reaffirming the noncompete agreement. Based on these findings, the trial court in the present case granted summary judgment for the defendant, applying collateral estoppel to preclude further consideration of the issues.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined the noncompete agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the agreement was supported by adequate consideration. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the severance payment was not consideration for reaffirming the noncompete agreement and that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. These rulings were binding in the present case. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with further proceedings required to determine the enforceability and potential breach of the noncompete agreement. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

Daniel’la Deering, an in-house lawyer for Lockheed Martin, was terminated and subsequently sued the company for discrimination and retaliation. While her discrimination claim was dismissed at the summary judgment stage, her retaliation claim was set to go to trial. However, during the litigation, Deering misled Lockheed Martin and the district court about her employment status and income. She falsely claimed to be employed by nVent and did not disclose her higher-paying job elsewhere, even submitting false information in a deposition, declaration, and settlement letters.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, presided over by Judge David S. Doty, found that Deering’s actions constituted intentional, willful, and bad-faith misconduct. Lockheed Martin discovered the deception shortly before the trial, leading to an emergency motion for sanctions. The district court dismissed Deering’s case with prejudice and awarded Lockheed Martin $93,193 in attorney fees. Deering’s motions for a continuance and reconsideration were also denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case due to Deering’s prolonged and intentional deception. The court emphasized that dismissal was appropriate given the severity and duration of the misconduct. Additionally, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Deering’s motions for a continuance and reconsideration. However, the appellate court dismissed Deering’s appeal regarding the attorney fee award due to a premature notice of appeal. View "Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corp." on Justia Law