Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant hired the plaintiff as a gardener and required him to sign an employment agreement (“Agreement”), which mandates arbitration of “all disputes between Employee and Company relating, in any manner whatsoever, to the employment or termination” of the employee. Plaintiff sued his employer, and the employer demanded arbitration. Plaintiff argued that the defendant waived the right to arbitrate, that he did not sign the Agreement or signed without informed consent, and the Agreement is unconscionable.On appeal, the court reasoned that arbitration agreements are “valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281. To declare an agreement unenforceable, a court must find procedural and substantive unconscionability. Here, the court found that defendant had superior bargaining power over the plaintiff. Further, the employer drafted the Agreement and presented it to the plaintiff as a condition of employment on a take-it-or-leave basis. The plaintiff claimed he had no opportunity to review the Agreement and was told the English-language Agreement involved a company change, not that it waived his right to a jury trial. The plaintiff was instructed to sign the Agreement or be fired.The court found that the employer presented the plaintiff with an agreement in a language he cannot read, misrepresented the nature of the document, denied him an opportunity to review it, included unfair and onerous provisions, and chilled his ability to claim civil rights violations. Thus, the court denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Nunez v. Cycad Management LLC" on Justia Law

Appellant Nicholas Kroll appealed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal of his complaint. Kroll was terminated from his position as a police officer for the City of Wilmington (the “City”) on the ground that he failed to comply with a departmental requirement that he reside in the City. A second ground was that he violated a departmental regulation regarding dishonesty by giving a false or inaccurate address on annual, required residency affidavits. After his dismissal, he filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the City, its police department, and its mayor, in his official capacity, breached the police Collective Bargaining Agreement (the “CBA”) and his right to due process by modifying the definition of the term “residence” in October 2017, and applying the modified definition to him without giving the Fraternal Order of Police an opportunity to bargain the new definition on behalf of its members. The modification, Kroll argued, was material to the decision to terminate his employment. He also sought an injunction reinstating him as a City police officer with back pay. Appellees moved to dismiss, arguing the Court of Chancery lacked jurisdiction over the complaint’s subject matter. The Appellees argued, in part, that Kroll had an adequate remedy at law in the form of a petition for a writ of certiorari, which was within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. Appellees had not argued that Kroll’s complaint fell within the CBA grievance procedure (that issue was raised sua sponte by the Court of Chancery in its ruling). The parties agreed the disciplinary action taken against Kroll was not subject to the grievance procedure set forth in the CBA. Appellees agreed the Court of Chancery committed legal error by basing its decision on the CBA’s grievance procedure. They urged the Delaware Supreme Court, however, to affirm on the alternative grounds for dismissal that were asserted in the Court of Chancery. Finding the Court of Chancery did not address Appellees' arguments, the Supreme Court reversed judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kroll v. City of Wilmington" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a temporary employee on a construction job suffered a diabetic attack at work. Six days later, the plaintiff was terminated along with several others. After exhausting her administrative remedies, the plaintiff sued her employer in the Eastern District of Texas, bringing claims for damages under the ADA, alleging she had been discriminated against due to her diabetes.The circuit court found that the evidence was that plaintiff was terminated immediately after an event that highlighted her ADA-protected disability. The court reasoned proximity of her diabetic episode on the job and her termination was sufficient to constitute a prima facie case that she was included in the group to be terminated for ADA violative reasons. The court further found that plaintiff has presented evidence sufficient to rebut the defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason for termination and show that a fact question exists as to whether that explanation is pretextual. Thus, the plaintiff established the elements of her prima facie case and she has also presented “substantial evidence” that the defendant’s nondiscriminatory rationale for her inclusion in the reduction in force was pretextual. An issue of material fact remains regarding whether the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of her disability by including her in the reduction of force. View "Gosby v. Apache Industrial" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint alleging a violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. 181.932, subd. 1(1), holding that there was no error.After Plaintiff, a former regional director with DNR, was terminated she brought this action alleging that her reporting of suspected illegal activity at a hotel where she was staying for a work-related conference caused her termination. The district court granted summary judgment for DNR. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact for trial over whether her alleged protected activity was a motivating factor in the decision of the DNR to terminate Plaintiff; and (2) therefore, summary judgment was properly granted. View "Hanson v. State, Department of Natural Resources" on Justia Law

In 2010, Plaintiff filed several employment claims against her employer. In 2013, the parties reached a settlement agreement. However, before the parties reached their agreement, Plaintiff resigned in lieu of termination. Plaintiff then filed a subsequent claim against her employer, alleging retaliation.The D.C. Circuit held that the initial settlement agreement did not preclude Plaintiff’s ability to bring a retaliation claim. The parties’ initial agreement released Plaintiff’s employer for “all claims” related to her employment; however, it also carved out various exceptions, including Plaintiff’s ability to pursue any claims she raised in her separate grievance, including her claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for the district court to determine if Plaintiff properly presented the claim for consideration. View "Karin Weng v. Martin J. Walsh" on Justia Law

King worked for the Hospital as a registered nurse since 2002; her asthma began worsening around 2013-2014. During particularly bad asthma flare-ups, King called in sick. The Hospital offers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 29 U.S.C. 2601, to employees who have worked at least 1,250 hours in the past year. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, employees may seek up to one year of unpaid medical leave even if they are not eligible for FMLA leave. A third-party administrator, FMLASource, handles all leave requests. King received several warnings for attendance issues. King called FMLASource and was told she was ineligible because she had not worked enough hours. The parties dispute whether the call constituted an inquiry or an application King tried to correct the error in calculating her hours through human resources and kept calling in sick. The Hospital terminated her employment. Later, FMLASource retroactively approved King for non-FMLA leave.King sued, alleging interference and retaliation under the FMLA and failure to accommodate and disability discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12112. The district court granted the Hospital summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Accepting King’s version of events, the Hospital did not give her all of the benefits of non-FMLA leave and, therefore, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. The Hospital did not establish that King’s absence, while she tried to obtain leave, caused undue hardship. View "King v. Steward Trumbull Memorial Hospital" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a Nevada limited liability partnership (“W&L Nevada”) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The district court granted summary judgment for W&L Nevada on plaintiff’s ADA claims. The district court held that, as a matter of law, W&L Nevada was not a covered employer under the ADA because (1) it had fewer than 15 employees and (2) plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact whether W&L Nevada was an “integrated enterprise” with W&L California.The circuit court held that even when a defendant has fewer than 15 employees, a plaintiff can bring a statutory claim if she can establish that (1) defendant is “so interconnected with another employer that the two form an integrated enterprise” and (2) the integrated enterprise collectively has at least 15 employees. Here, the circuit court found that plaintiff established a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendant’s two offices were an integrated enterprise. Further, defendant did not present evidence that the Nevada and California offices were separate operations and maintained separate books. Accordingly, the circuit court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff’s ADA claims. Further, the circuit court remanded the district court to address whether the integrated enterprise had fewer than 15 employees. View "AMY BUCHANAN V. WATKINS & LETOFSKY, LLP" on Justia Law

After discovering apparent financial malfeasance by the plaintiff, then president of Local 1637, the Amalgamated Transit Union (“ATU”) imposed the trusteeship, thereby removing plaintiff and the other Local 1637 executive board members from office. Plaintiff filed a single-plaintiff action against ATU and several of its officers. Later, while that action was still pending, plaintiff filed a second, multiplaintiff action in which he and a majority of the other former executive board members of Local 1637 asserted related claims against ATU, the same ATU officers, and several other defendants.Because the claims against these defendants in the two cases otherwise involved the same causes of action and the same parties, the assertion of those claims in the second suit violated the doctrine of claim-splitting. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court correctly concluded that, with respect to the claims against ATU and its officers, the additional plaintiffs in the multi-plaintiff action were adequately represented by the plaintiff in the single plaintiff action. Because the claims against these defendants in the two cases otherwise involved the same causes of action and the same parties, the assertion of those claims in the second suit violated the doctrine of claim splitting. The circuit court affirmed the district court finding that the court properly dismissed the duplicative claims against the ATU Defendants in the multiplaintiff suit. View "JOSE MENDOZA, JR. V. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION" on Justia Law

AirFacts, Inc. sued a former employee for breaching several provisions of his employment agreement and misappropriating trade secrets. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the employee on all counts. On Airfacts first appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed. On remand, the district court found for the employee again. Airfacts filed a second appeal.The Fourth Circuit first held that AirFacts had abandoned all its contract claims except one alleging that defendant breached the employment agreement’s noncompete clause, which the court then rejected. AirFacts argued that defendant misappropriated its trade secrets by taking the flowcharts and proration documents. The circuit court found that defendant breached the employment agreement, but only immaterially because there’s no evidence his conduct harmed or prejudiced AirFacts. Thus, because AirFacts has failed to prove it suffered any harm from the defendant’s breaches, the district court did not err by awarding only nominal damages on these claims. The court further found there is no evidence that the defendant took confidential information with him. Finally, the court remanded the case back to the district court to decide what AirFacts deserves in reasonable royalty damages. View "AirFacts, Inc. v. Diego De Amezaga" on Justia Law

Indiana legislators, lobbyists, and legislative staff enjoy a party on the day the legislature adjourns for the year. The March 2018 celebration was held at AJ’s Lounge in Indianapolis. Hill, the state’s Attorney General, appeared at the party and made passes at several women, moving from verbal to physical harassment, including groping. A special prosecutor concluded that criminal charges were inappropriate. The Indiana Supreme Court suspended Hill’s law license for 30 days, a punishment mitigated by his long, previously unblemished record. His bid for renomination failed. His term as Attorney General ended in January 2021.Women legislative employees filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, other statutes, and Indiana’s common law. The district judge dismissed all claims against Hill without prejudice to their renewal in state court and dismissed all claims against Indiana, ruling that it is not the plaintiffs’ employer. Claims against the House and Senate remain pending in the district court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals. Indiana cannot be treated as the plaintiffs’ “employer” under 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b), e–2(a). They were hired, and are supervised, by the House or Senate, which holds the sole power to discipline, fire, or reward them. The statute requires people to sue their own employers, so it is irrelevant whether the state employs the Attorney General. View "DaSilva v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law