Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Bryant was a VA police officer, assigned to the Columbus Community Based Out-Patient Clinic in Columbus, Georgia. The VA issued Bryant a notice of proposed removal under 38 U.S.C. 714 based on conduct unbecoming a federal employee. The notice alleged that while sheriff's officers were attempting to serve Bryant “with a Temporary Family Violence Order of Protection,” Bryant made inappropriate statements and displayed a lack of professionalism; Bryant “ma[de] threats” that “caused these [officers] to fear for their safety,” which was “unacceptable” and “inexcusable” for a “[f]ederal [p]olice [o]fficer entrusted with carrying a loaded firearm each day.”The deciding official found that the charge was supported by substantial evidence and decided to remove Bryant from employment. Bryant contested whether the charged conduct occurred and whether removal was an appropriate penalty under the Douglas factors, and alleged as an affirmative defense of reprisal for protected whistleblowing activity. The administrative judge found that “the agency proved the charge by substantial evidence.” The Federal Circuit vacated in part. The Merit Systems Protection Board applied the wrong standard and, on remand, must apply a “preponderance of the evidence” standard to determine whether the conduct occurred and apply the Douglas factors to the penalty. Bryant failed to prove his affirmative defense of whistleblower reprisal. View "Bryant v. Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the opinion of the court of appeals vacating the administrative law judge's (ALJ) award of temporarily total disability (TTD) benefits and affirmed the portion of the court of appeals' opinion vacating the award of permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits insofar as it applied to the enhancement, holding that the court of appeals erred in part.Plaintiff sustained a work-related injury while working for Defendant. An ALJ awarded Plaintiff TTD benefits, PPD benefits, and medical benefits. The ALJ applied the two-times multiplier from Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.730(1)(c)2 to Plaintiff's PPD benefits. The court of appeals vacated the ALJ's award of TTD benefits and vacated the award of PPD benefits insofar as it applied to the enhancement. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the ALJ did not err in awarding Plaintiff TTD benefits; and (2) the ALJ erred in enhancing Plaintiff's PPD benefits by the two-times multiplier. View "French v. Rev-A-Shelf" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) granting Austin Ellison's workers' compensation claim and awarding him disability benefits, holding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusions.Ellison, who was employed by Dee Whitaker Concrete as a general laborer, was leaving a job site and traveling back to Whitaker Concrete's premises when he was injured in an automobile accident. Whitaker Concrete denied Ellison's workers' compensation claim on the ground that injuries sustained while going to or returning from the workplace are not compensable. The ALJ ruled that Ellison's injuries were compensable, finding that Ellison fell within the traveling employee and the service to the employer exceptions to the going and coming rule. The Board and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Ellison's status as a traveling employee qualified as an exception to the going and coming rule. View "Dee Whitaker Concrete v. Ellison" on Justia Law

Labor unions and the West Virginia Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Fund, sued Nitro Construction under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. 185, after Nitro made several tardy payments to the Fund. Nitro had paid its required contribution before the suit was filed; the suit sought $77,373.95 in liquidated damages, plus interest and attorneys’ fees, as provided for by the collection procedures.The district court granted Nitro summary judgment, holding that the liquidated damages constituted penalties and were therefore unrecoverable. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Although ERISA allows punitive liquidated damages, federal common law prohibits punitive damages for breach of contract. The federal common law to be applied in LMRA Section 301 cases is ordinarily the general law of contracts. The court noted that the Fund sought almost $80,000 in liquidated damages, even though its actual damages (lost interest) are readily ascertainable and were only $3,952. Nitro’s late payments did not result in any claim being denied. Nitro never agreed to the liquidated damages provisions; the Fund unilaterally created its delinquent employer procedures under its governing document. The district court did not err by finding these liquidated damages provisions to be punitive and declining to enforce them. View "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 625 v. Nitro Construction Services, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2011, during the course and scope of his employment as a shipwright, Claimant Robert Arlet slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk on the premises of his employer, Flagship Niagara League (Employer), sustaining injuries. Employer had obtained a Commercial Hull Policy from Acadia Insurance Company (Insurer). Through the policy, Insurer provided coverage for damages caused by the Brig Niagara and for Jones Act protection and indemnity coverage for the “seventeen (17) crewmembers” of the Brig Niagara. Employer had also at some point obtained workers’ compensation insurance from the State Workers’ Insurance Fund (SWIF). Insurer paid benefits to Claimant under its Commercial Hull Policy’s “maintenance and cure” provision. Claimant filed for workers’ compensation benefits. Employer asserted Claimant’s remedy was exclusively governed by the Jones Act. Employer also filed to join SWIF as an additional insurer in the event the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) was deemed to supply the applicable exclusive remedy, and Employer was found to be liable thereunder. SWIF denied coverage, alleging Employer’s policy was lapsed at the time of Claimant’s injury. Thereafter, Claimant filed an Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund (UEGF) claim petition, asserting the fund’s liability in the event he prevailed, and Employer was deemed uncovered by SWIF and failed to pay. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that as a land-based employee, Claimant did not meet the definition of seaman under the Jones Act and was, therefore, entitled to pursue his workers’ compensation claim. The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review was one of first impression: the right of an insurer to subrogation under the WCA. The Supreme Court concluded Insurer’s Commercial Hull Policy did not cover Claimant, because Claimant was not a “seaman” or crew member. The WCA’s exclusive remedy applied, but Insurer was seeking subrogation for payment it made on a loss it did not cover. "[T]he 'no-coverage exception' to the general equitable rule precluding an insurer from pursuing subrogation against its insured comports with the purposes and public policy supporting the rule and hereby adopt it as the law of this Commonwealth. ... any equitable rule precluding an insurer from seeking subrogation against its insured is best tempered by the exception adopted herein today." View "Arlet v. WCAB (L&I)" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court rejecting the jury's advisory verdict in this case, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Plaintiff, a former intelligence specialist, sued his former employer, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Puerto Rico pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging discriminatory retaliation and constructive discharge resulting from a hostile work environment. After a jury returned a verdict on liability for retaliation and awarding the statutory maximum in damages, the district court charged the jury to return an advisory verdict on the issue of damages for constructive discharge. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff as to that issue, and thereafter, Plaintiff sought a judgment of front and back pay. The district court rejected the jury's advisory verdict, concluding that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, that Plaintiff was not constructively discharged, and that Plaintiff was not entitled to front or back pay. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff waived his objection to the district court's decision to submit the constructive discharge issue to an advisory jury; and (2) the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous. View "Reyes-Caparros v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that probation officers are state employees for purposes of Ind. Code 4-6-2-1.5, which requires the Attorney General to defend state employees, and that the statute applies to probation officers.This dispute arose from the facts that the General Assembly has granted the judiciary primary authority over probation officers' employment, that precedent has recognized that probation officers are court employees, but that counties are responsible for paying probation officers' salaries and certain expenses. At issue before the Supreme Court was how to determine which entity was responsible for defending and indemnifying probation officers in a lawsuit. The trial court ultimately concluded that the county was responsible for both the officers' representation and payment of any judgment against them. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) probation officers are state employees for purposes of the general statute requiring the Attorney General to defend state employees; and (2) that statute applies to probation officers. View "Lake County Board of Commissioners v. State" on Justia Law

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 authorizes USPS to “classify and fix the compensation and benefits of all officers and employees,” 39 U.S.C. 1003(a), to “provide adequate and reasonable differentials in rates of pay between employees in the clerk and carrier grades . . . and supervisory and other managerial personnel.” USPS must “achieve and maintain compensation for its . . . employees comparable to the rates and types of compensation paid in the private sector of the economy” and must allow organizations representing supervisory and other managerial employees “to participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules” relating to supervisory and managerial employees.The Association, a recognized organization of supervisory personnel, challenged USPS’s adoption of the 2016–2019 pay package for “Field” Executive and Administrative Schedule personnel. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the cited provisions state “policy goals.” not mandatory and enforceable directives.The D.C. Circuit reversed. The Association plausibly alleged that USPS exceeded its statutory authority by failing to institute “some differential” in pay for supervisors and by failing to demonstrate that it set its compensation levels by reference, inter alia, to the compensation paid” in the private sector. USPS failed to comply with the Act by refusing to consult with the Association on compensation for “Area” and “Headquarters” employees; by refusing to consult regarding postmasters; and by failing to provide the Association with reasons for rejecting its recommendations. View "National Association of Postal Supervisors v. United States Postal Service" on Justia Law

Labor Code section 970 prohibits employers from inducing employees to relocate and accept employment by way of knowingly false representations regarding the kind, character, or existence of work, or the length of time such work will last. Section 970 requires the plaintiff to establish, among other elements, justifiable reliance, and a knowingly false representation. Smule develops and markets consumer applications with a specialty in music social applications. White alleged a violation of section 970 arising out of discussions he had with Smule before accepting a position with Smule as lead project manager. White conceded he read, signed, and understood an “at-will” employment agreement.The trial court granted Smule summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed. White’s undisputed “at-will” employment status meant that he could not establish justifiable reliance on the length of time his work would last. Broadly construed, however, White’s complaint also encompassed misrepresentations regarding the role White would fill at Smule. The “at-will” employment provision did not negate justifiable reliance on those representations. View "White v. Smule, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Town of Brookline, Massachusetts on Plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging discrimination on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Brookline violated his equal protection rights in terminating his employment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's evidence failed to establish that the Town's proffered reasons for failing to accommodate and then dismissing Plaintiff were a pretext for race discrimination. View "Fincher v. Town of Brookline" on Justia Law