Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a foreign oil company, contracted with Ecuador to develop an oil-rich region of the rainforest. Defendant paid its Ecuadorian employees a sizable portion of its annual profits. The government canceled the exploration contract and expropriated Occidental’s property, leading to massive losses. Profits and profit-sharing abruptly ceased. Occidental sought arbitration and, a decade later, received a nearly billion-dollar settlement from Ecuador. Plaintiffs, a group of Occidental’s former Ecuadorian employees, then sued Occidental, claiming the arbitration settlement represented profits they were entitled to share. The district court correctly dismissed the employees’ claims. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims holding that Defendant owes its former employees no shared profits for the relevant year. The court reasoned that under the plain terms of Ecuadorian law, a company’s profit-sharing obligation depends on the profits lawfully declared in its annual tax returns. Plaintiffs maintained that tax returns are “not the exclusive mechanism for determining profit-sharing liability.” However, the court held Ecuador's law is clear that the calculation [of profits shall be conducted on the basis of the declarations or determinations prepared for the payment of Income Tax, and Occidental’s tax returns for the interrupted year of 2006 showed not profits but losses. View "Cisneros Guerrero, et al v. Occidental Petro, et a" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's request for a declaration that Nev. Rev. Stat. 42.021 precluded Respondent from recovering its workers' compensation payments from Appellant's medical malpractice settlement proceeds, holding that the statute applies only to situations in which a medical malpractice defendant introduces evidence of a plaintiff's collateral source benefits.Appellant brought this action against Respondent asserting claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and claiming that Nev. Rev. Stat. 42.021(2) prohibited Respondent from asserting a lien against her settlement proceeds and seeking an injunction requiring Respondent to continue paying her workers' compensation benefits. The district court denied Appellant's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Respondent's Nev. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) motion, concluding that section 42.021's plain language applied only to actions where third-party payments were introduced into evidence and did not apply to cases that settled before trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain language of sections 42.021(1) and (2) prohibits a payer of collateral source benefits from seeking reimbursement from a medical malpractice plaintiff only when the medical malpractice defendant introduces evidence of those payments. View "Harper v. Copperpoint Mutual Insurance Holding Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who deliver baked goods in designated territories in Connecticut, brought an action on behalf of a putative class against the manufacturer of the baked goods that Plaintiffs deliver. The district court compelled arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement that is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and Connecticut law. Plaintiffs claimed that they are not subject to the FAA because Section 1 of the FAA excludes contracts with “seamen, railroad employees, [and] any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. Section 1. The exclusion is construed to cover “transportation workers.”   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision ordering arbitration and dismissing Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant for unpaid or withheld wages, unpaid overtime wages, and unjust enrichment. The court held that Plaintiffs did not qualify as transportation workers.The court reasoned that though Plaintiffs spend appreciable parts of their working days moving goods from place to place by truck, the stores and restaurants are not buying the movement of the baked goods, so long as they arrive. The charges are for the baked goods themselves, and the movement of those goods is at most a component of the total price. The commerce is in breads, buns, rolls, and snack cakes--not transportation services. View "Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries" on Justia Law

Daniel Schafer, a teacher at a high school in the Anderson Union High School District (District), had a sexual relationship on school premises with one of his students, plaintiff Jane Doe. Doe sued the District, principal Carol Germano, and superintendent Tim Azevedo for negligent hiring and negligent supervision. The trial court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the District, finding that there was no evidence the District knew or should have known that Schafer posed a risk of harm to students. On appeal, Doe contended the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because the District had a duty to supervise and monitor Schafer and Doe, and whether the District breached its duty to Doe was a question of fact for the jury to decide. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that on the trial court record, the District did not have a duty to review alarm data and video recordings in order to constantly monitor all teachers, students, and campus visitors, nor did it have such a duty specifically with regard to Schafer and Doe. View "Doe v. Anderson Union High School Dist." on Justia Law

Dorsa joined Miraca, which offers pathology services for healthcare providers. His employment agreement contained a binding arbitration clause. Dorsa claims that, during his employment, he observed Miraca giving monetary donations and free services to healthcare providers to induce pathology referrals, in violation of the AntiKickback Statute, the Stark Law, and the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1). Dorsa lodged internal complaints. Dorsa claims that Miraca fabricated a sexual harassment complaint against him. Dorsa filed a qui tam action against Miraca in September 2013. Days later, Miraca fired Dorsa, citing workplace harassment. Dorsa added an FCA retaliation claim.The government investigated the FCA claims and, in 2018, intervened for purposes of settlement, under which Miraca agreed to pay $63.5 million to resolve FCA claims. Miraca moved to dismiss the remaining retaliation claim, citing the arbitration clause, Dorsa argued that the clause did not apply because his claim was independent from the employment agreement. Miraca then asserted that the court did not have the authority to decide a threshold question of arbitrability. The district court ruled in favor of Dorsa. Miraca later moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of that motion. Miraca forfeited and waived its arguments about the district court’s authority to decide threshold questions of arbitrability and its ruling on the merits. Filing the motion to dismiss was inconsistent with Miraca’s later attempts to rely on the arbitration agreement. View "Dorsa v. Miraca Life Sciences, Inc." on Justia Law

RiverStone operates quarries in three midwestern states. Under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), RiverStone contributed to the Fringe Benefit Funds for certain employees, based on hours worked by the members of the bargaining unit. The CBA expired in May 2016. Nothing in the agreement imposes on RiverStone an obligation to make contributions after the agreement. RiverStone sought a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to make contributions to the employees’ pension fund on behalf of individuals hired after the CBA expired. The Funds filed a counterclaim.The district court granted RiverStone summary judgment, holding that RiverStone did not have a contractual duty to contribute to the Funds on behalf of the new employees and that it lacked jurisdiction to evaluate noncontractual sources of liability, such as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) so the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The dispute is over an obligation that does not arise under any contract. Once a CBA has expired, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1145, does not confer jurisdiction on the district court to determine whether the employer’s failure to make post-contract contributions violated the NLRA. View "RiverStone Group, Inc v. Midwest Operating Engineers Fringe Benefit Funds" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs claimed that BevMo's policy, requiring the presence of two persons in any store while open, regularly requires employees to forgo off-duty, uninterrupted meal and rest periods, or, alternatively, premium pay for non-compliant meal and rest periods. In their Contra Costa County representative suit under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) (Lab. Code 2698), the plaintiffs gave notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. More than a year before that suit, Paez had filed a PAGA representative action against BevMo in Los Angeles, concerning the two-person policy. While their petition for judicial coordination (Code Civ. Proc. 404) with the Los Angeles PAGA suit was pending, the Contra Costa trial court stayed the suit.After the petition for coordination was denied, the court denied a motion to lift the stay, concluding that the stay was warranted under the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. The court of appeal denied a petition of mandamus relief. The trial court did not err in applying the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction rule to this dispute. If that rule is mandatory, PAGA does not clearly abrogate the rule; if the court had discretion to weigh policy concerns in deciding whether to apply the rule, the court did not abuse its discretion. View "Shaw v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants claiming they violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The district court entered an order granting summary judgment to Defendants. After the court entered its order, but before the clerk had entered a separate judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he had accepted an offer of judgment that Defendants had extended in which they agreed to pay him four thousand dollars plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.   Plaintiff maintained that, under Rule 68(a), he could accept the offer anytime up to fourteen days after Defendants had served him with it, and therefore it had survived the court's grant of summary judgment. The clerk nevertheless entered judgment consistent with the summary-judgment order. Plaintiff moved the court to amend the judgment to reflect the terms in the offer of judgment. The district court, relying on Perkins, granted Plaintiff’s motion, and the clerk entered a new judgment. Defendants appealed, maintaining that the judgment should have reflected the court's summary judgment ruling rather than the offer of judgment.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling and denied Defendants' requested relief and affirmed the district court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for recusal and from the court’s order granting Plaintiff only one dollar in attorneys' fees. The court reasoned that only its’ en banc court may overrule a prior panel's decision. Further, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding only one dollar in fees. View "Stetson Skender v. Eden Isle Corporation" on Justia Law

A&D Interests, Incorporated (doing business as the “Heartbreakers Gentlemen’s Club”), petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a writ of mandamus. Petitioners argue that the district court should not have certified a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action comprised of “exotic” dancers who had worked at Heartbreakers in the last three years.   The Fifth Circuit granted Petitioner’s motion for a writ of mandamus in their Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. The court held that none of the three causes of the arbitration agreement prohibit potential plaintiffs from participating in collective action.   The court analyzed whether mandamus is warranted and found that Petitioners met the first requirement because the relevant issue will become moot before Petitioners can file an appeal. The court held that the second requirement is met because ensuring judicial neutrality and preventing district courts from needlessly stirring up litigation is good cause for a writ to issue. Thus, the court held that in light of In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., 916 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2019), the district court clearly and indisputably erred. View "In re: A&D Interests" on Justia Law

The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to decide whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment against public school teacher Sheri Mimbs, on the basis that Mimbs failed to institute her whistleblower action within one year after discovering the alleged acts of retaliation. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded Mimbs’s complaint was timely with respect to one of the acts giving rise to her retaliation claim. Therefore, the Court reversed in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the school district. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Mimbs v. Henry County Schools" on Justia Law