Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, sued Denis McDonough, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, for disability discrimination. Plaintiff alleged three violations of the Rehabilitation Act: failure to accommodate; disability discrimination; and retaliation for requesting an accommodation. The district court granted summary judgment to Secretary McDonough.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that Plaintiff’s requested accommodation was not required under the Rehabilitation Act because it would impose an undue hardship on the VAPD. The court explained that Plaintiff’s accommodations would have violated the VAPD’s collective bargaining agreement, which requires that “[s]cheduled off-tours shall be rotated fairly and equitably among affected employees, i.e., day/evening, day/night.” Plaintiff’s requested accommodations are therefore presumptively unreasonable.   Plaintiff further argued that his reassignment was not reasonable for two reasons. First, he claimed that day shifts were not the only form of requested relief; they were just one of many possible accommodations the VAPD could have made. But the record undermines his argument. Further, he also suggested that his reassignment constituted an adverse employment action, not a reasonable accommodation. The VAPD provided the only available reasonable accommodation—reassignment. The district court was therefore correct to grant summary judgment to Secretary McDonough on Plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim.   Moreover, Plaintiff claimed the unusual nature of his hiring process proves that the real reason for his non-selection was disability discrimination. However, showing that an interview process is “unusual” is not sufficient to prove that an employer’s proffered reason is pretextual. View "Jesse LeBlanc v. Denis McDonough" on Justia Law

The United States Secretary of Labor (“Secretary”) sued Alpha & Omega USA, Inc., d/b/a Travelon Transportation and its owner (together “Travelon”) for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. Travelon appealed, arguing the district court erred in granting the Secretary’s motion.   The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment finding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether an employment relationship existed between Travelon and its drivers. The court wrote that when an employment relationship is in question, many courts decide whether workers are independent contractors or employees by applying the multi-factor “economic realities” test. This test examines six factors regarding the economic realities of the working relationship.   The court explained that here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Travelon, issues of material fact remain as to the working relationship between Travelon and its drivers. Specifically, Travelon has offered evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find the “control,” “profits and losses,” and “integral to business” factors weigh in favor of the drivers being independent contractors.   Further, while the Secretary has shown evidence supporting an employment relationship between Travelon and its drivers, Travelon has also shown evidence of an independent contractor relationship. These competing narratives must be resolved before the district court makes its legal conclusion as to whether an employment relationship existed between Travelon and its drivers. View "Martin Walsh v. Alpha & Omega USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Parker suffers from MS and sciatica and has received social security disability benefits for that diagnosis for several years. Brooks hired Parker in 2017. Parker worked as a receptionist 25 hours per week (usually mornings). Parker had different supervisors and received mixed feedback on her performance. Parker had to be “coached” concerning her use of paid time off (PTO). In 2018, Parker requested time off to get treatment for pain. Her supervisor, Williams, learned that during Williams’ absence, Parker had taken unapproved time off and made schedule changes. Williams approved the requests but warned that Parker was exceeding her PTO. Parker acknowledged that she needed to do a better job complying with the policy. Williams understood Parker’s statements to be admissions and emailed HR employees, recommending termination. After receiving their assent, Williams informed Parker that she was being terminated. Brooks apparently told the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that Parker had voluntarily quit to accept other employment. In response to her EEOC complaint, Brooks stated that its reason for terminating Parker was repeated failure to follow established PTO policies.In a suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Brooks. Parker did not produce evidence that would allow a reasonable juror to infer a link between her request for accommodation (time off for pain treatment) and her termination. View "Parker v. Brooks Life Science, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against Independence School District alleging that he had been fired in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 278.780, holding that the general assembly expressly waived whatever immunity the school district might have had.In dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, the circuit court found that the school district enjoyed sovereign immunity from Plaintiff's workers' compensation retaliation claim. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that workers' compensation claims are authorized against the school district because the legislature included state and political subdivisions such as school districts as employers for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that, considered together, sections 278.780 and Mo. Rev. Stat. 287.030 reflect an express showing of legislative intent to waive the school district's sovereign immunity for Plaintiff's workers' compensation retaliation claim. View "Poke v. Independence School District" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's whistleblower retaliation claim brought under section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, holding that Plaintiff could not satisfy his burden of bringing a claim for whistleblower retaliation under section 18 U.S.C. 1514A.Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, sued Defendant for whistleblower retaliation under section 1514A, but his particular whistleblower claim was based on an alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(2), (5). Defendant moved for summary judgment following the completion of discovery, arguing that Plaintiff's action did not fall within any of the definitions of protected activity under section 1514A. The district court denied the motion as to the whistleblower retaliation claim. The First Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Defendant, holding that Plaintiff's conduct was not "protected activity" under section 1514A. View "Baker v. Smith & Wesson, Inc." on Justia Law

Lesiv works for the Illinois Central Railroad. His brother, Lyubomir, had also worked there but left shortly after he filed a discrimination and retaliation charge against Illinois Central. Lyubomir later filed a discrimination suit in state court; Lesiv testified in a 2018 deposition. Almost three months later, his supervisors gave Lesiv a dangerous work assignment and suspended him after he refused to complete it. Lesiv asserts that Illinois Central violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by direct individual retaliation because he testified in his brother’s lawsuit, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), and by third-party retaliation, to harm his brother in retaliation for his brother’s charges.The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Illinois Central on both claims. A retaliation claim requires proof that the employer took a “materially adverse” action against an employee because he engaged in protected activity or because another person close to him did so. A jury could find here that the dangerous work assignment and the suspension amounted to materially adverse actions but could not find retaliatory motives. Lesiv had no evidence that his supervisors took these actions against him because of his or his brother’s protected activities. None of the relevant supervisors knew that Lesiv had engaged in protected activity by testifying in his brother’s lawsuit. View "Lesiv v. Illinois Central Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the trial courts in these two labor and employment cases erred in granting summary judgment at the conclusion of the workers' evidence at trial because genuine issues of material fact existed.At issue was whether construction workers were entitled to unpaid wages or overtime wages for the time that they waited and traveled between a parking area where their employers directed them to park and a construction site where they performed physical labor. Specifically at issue was whether the Portal-to Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. 251 to 262, has been adopted or incorporated into Maryland law, in which cases the workers' wait and travel time of approximately two hours would not be compensable. The trial courts granted summary judgment in favor of the employers and dismissed all claims. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the workers were entitled to compensation under Code of Maryland Regulations 09.12.41.10. View "Amaya v. DGS Construction, LLC" on Justia Law

Kingman, Rhinelander Wisconsin’s Director of Public Works, spoke at a City Council meeting with a declaration of no confidence in a colleague. Rhinelander investigated Kingman’s contentions and found them without merit. In the process, however, third-party investigators discovered that Kingman himself had not only mistreated his employees but also had gone so far as to retaliate against those who had complained about the toxic work environment he created in his department.Kingman was fired and filed a lawsuit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the termination reflected retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights at the City Council meeting. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Rhinelander and individual defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that the Council’s vote to fire Kingman reflected unlawful retaliation. Regardless of whether Kingman spoke to the council as a private citizen or in connection with his employment, Kingman’s behavior toward his subordinates is just the type of “significant intervening event” and seriously “inappropriate workplace behavior” that separates an employee’s protected activity “from the adverse employment action he receives.” View "Kingman v. Frederickson" on Justia Law

In 2017 Nigro, a certified nurse anesthetist, began working at Riley Hospital. Division Director, Dr. Sadhasivam, recruited her and started implementing a new team-based care model. Within a year, an internal investigation revealed department-wide concern over the model’s efficacy and impact on team dynamics. Some employees believed that Sadhasivam’s leadership style resulted in a tense workplace. In 2017-2019, Nigro was the subject of multiple complaints, mostly concerning her attitude and ability to work on a team. Coworkers described her as “rude, snappy and belittling,” with management expressing concern that her behavior undermined the department’s already delicate atmosphere of collegiality. After investigating the complaints, hospital decision-makers issued a “coaching memorandum” to Nigro. A month later, it was determined that Nigro had engaged in timekeeping fraud by not working at times when she had been clocked in, Sadhasivam and three female administrators, agreed to terminate her for misconduct.Nigro filed suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), alleging sex-based discrimination and retaliation because of a supportive affidavit she had signed in another employee’s discrimination case. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. There is neither direct nor indirect evidence to support Nigro’s Title VII claim. View "Nigro v. Indiana University Health Care" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court dismissing this action brought by Arizona corrections officers seeking overtime compensation for time spent in mandatory pre-shift security screenings, holding that whether the corrections officers were entitled to overtime should be decided as a matter of law.At issue was whether the State has incorporated the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. 251–262, into Ariz. Rev. Stat. 23-392 to govern Arizona corrections officers’ claims for overtime compensation for time spent in mandatory pre-shift security screenings. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss, concluding that the pre-shift security screening was not compensable. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that for purposes of defining "work" to determine overtime eligibility for law enforcement officers under section 23-392, the state has not incorporated the Act in the statute, and state agency regulations purporting to do so are not legally binding. View "Roberts v. State" on Justia Law