Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff worked as a sales associate at an AutoZone auto parts store operated by Defendant AutoZoners, (AutoZoners). Plaintiff filed the present suit asserting one claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, Section 2699 et seq.) (PAGA). She asserted AutoZoners failed to provide suitable seating to employees at the cashier and parts counter workstations, as to which some or all of the work required could be performed while sitting. AutoZoners moved for summary judgment, arguing Plaintiff lacked standing to bring a representative action under PAGA because she was not aggrieved by AutoZoners’s seating policy.   The trial court agreed with AutoZoners and granted the motion. The Second Appellate District reversed. The court explained that no published California authority has considered what steps should be taken by an employer to “provide” suitable seating within the meaning of the wage order seating requirement. Thus, the court concluded that where an employer has not expressly advised its employees that they may use a seat during their work and has not provided a seat at a workstation, the inquiry as to whether an employer has “provided” suitable seating may be fact-intensive and may involve a multitude of job and workplace-specific factors.   Accordingly, resolution of the issue at the summary judgment stage may be inappropriate, because the undisputed facts create a triable issue of material fact as to whether AutoZoners “provided” suitable seating to its customer service employees at the front of the store by placing seats at other workstations in a separate area of the store. View "Meda v. Autozone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police officer for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”), sued the MTA under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), alleging that the MTA negligently failed to provide him with a safe workplace when it sent him on patrol in a vehicle without a prisoner compartment. A jury found the MTA liable and awarded Plaintiff damages. The MTA moved for judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that it is immune from liability pursuant to the governmental function defense and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because it lacked expert testimony. The district court denied that motion, holding that the governmental function defense does not apply in FELA cases.   The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the FELA does not abrogate the governmental function defense, and therefore the defense is available in FELA cases. Though the governmental function defense was available for the MTA to assert, the MTA failed to show that the defense barred liability in this case. Here, the defense did not apply on the merits in this case, however, because the MTA has failed to show that it performed a discretionary governmental function when committing the allegedly negligent acts. Additionally, the court held that expert testimony was not required in this case. Further, the court could not say that the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict for Plaintiff was legally insufficient. View "Ojeda v. MTA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked as a driver for California Transit. After California Transit terminated his employment, Evenskaas filed this wage and hour class action against California Transit; its owner, and the company that administered California Transit’s payroll, Personnel Staffing Group, LLC (collectively, the California Transit defendants).   Because Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement, in which he agreed to arbitrate all claims arising from his employment and waived his right to seek class-wide relief, the California Transit defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion. The California Transit defendants appealed, contending the FAA applies to the arbitration agreement.   The Second Appellate District reversed the order denying Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is reversed. The court directed the trial court to enter a new order granting the motion and dismissing Plaintiff’s class claims. The court explained that because the paratransit services California Transit hired Plaintiff to provide involve interstate commerce for purposes of the FAA, the FAA applies to the arbitration agreement and preempts the Gentry rule that certain class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are unenforceable. View "Evenskaas v. California Transit, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendants liable for failing to pay all of the wages owed to Plaintiff, their former employee, holding that there was no error in the district court's evidentiary decisions.On appeal, Defendants argued that the district court erred in excluding evidence that Plaintiff was accused of rape just months before he began to pursue the wage claims at issue and that the district court erred in admitting testimony, along with documentary evidence, from one of Plaintiff's former colleagues. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the challenged evidentiary decisions at issue - one to exclude evidence and the other to admit evidence - were proper and did not require remand for a new trial. View "Gonpo v. Sonam's Stonewalls & Art, LLC" on Justia Law

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