Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner California Correctional Peace Officers Association Benefit Trust Fund (CCPOA) paid money pursuant to its disability policy to real party in interest David Martin Jr., a CCPOA member, after he filed a workers’ compensation claim for injuries sustained while working as a correctional officer. CCPOA subsequently filed a lien against the prospective workers’ compensation award for the sum it paid. It was represented in the workers’ compensation proceedings by petitioner Dan Escamilla, a non-attorney appearing pursuant to Labor Code section 5700. After Martin’s attorney petitioned for costs and sanctions against CCPOA and Escamilla for alleged misbehavior during proceedings on Martin’s claim, CCPOA withdrew the lien. Escamilla then failed to appear at four subsequent hearings on the petition for costs and sanctions. While respondent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) ultimately affirmed the denial of costs and sanctions, it affirmed an award of $3,280 in attorney fees against CCPOA and Escamilla for the failure to appear at the four hearings. Petitioners filed a petition for writ of review, claiming: (1) the failure to notify them that a hearing held subsequent to the COVID-19 pandemic was to be held telephonically was a deprivation of due process; (2) failure to appear following the withdrawal of the lien was not sanctionable bad faith; and (3) attorney fees were not permitted for an attorney expending time litigating on his or her own behalf. The Court of Appeal found there was adequate notice of the one hearing in question, withdrawal of the lien did not deprive WCAB of jurisdiction to determine the petition for costs and sanctions, and the contention regarding attorney fees for work on behalf of the attorney was not properly before the Court, as it was determined by WCAB in a previous proceeding. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Cal. Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court ruling that Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc. (WWB) would likely succeed on the merits of its claim that Jorge Malave, its employee, had breached his noncompete agreement that the WWB would suffer irreparable harm of Malave were not enjoined from continuing to work for WWB's competitor, holding that the district court erred.The district court concluded that there was a valid and reasonable noncompete agreement between the parties and that WWB would likely succeed on the merits of its claim that Malave had violated the agreement and would suffer possible irreparable injury if no injunction were entered. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that WWB did not meet its burden of proving probable success on the merits of the reasonableness of its noncompete agreement with Malave. View "Malave v. Western Wyoming Beverages, Inc." on Justia Law

Unions challenged a Policy Statement of the Federal Labor Relations Authority that announced for the first time that zipper clauses (provisions that foreclose midterm bargaining) are mandatory bargaining subjects. The Authority determined that, if an agency and a union intractably disagree over a zipper clause proposal, the agency may bring the proposal to the impasses panel—which has the authority to put it (or a different clause reflecting what it determines to be a better resolution) into the parties’ term agreement. Before 2020, the Authority had not issued any Policy Statement in over 35 years.The D.C. Circuit vacated the Policy Statement. The Authority structured its consideration of the zipper clause question in two steps, first holding that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute does not entitle employees to demand midterm bargaining even when the parties’ agreement is silent on the matter. The Authority then relied on that holding as “necessary” to its conclusion that proposed contractual zipper clauses expressly foreclosing midterm bargaining are mandatory bargaining subjects. The first holding was arbitrary. The Authority’s errors “include miscasting Supreme Court precedent, relying on conclusory assertions, and mischaracterizing its dramatic shift of the bargaining baseline as allowing the parties to resolve the issue.” View "American Federation of Government Employees v. Federal Labor Relations Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Cal. Labor Code 1102.6 governs whistleblower retaliation claims brought pursuant to Cal. Labor Code 1102.5.Since 2003, section 1102.6 has prescribed a framework for presenting and evaluating retaliation claims brought under section 1102.5. Since 2003, some courts continued to apply the burden-shifting framework borrowed from the decision in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff's whistleblower retaliation claim in this case, concluding that Plaintiff could not satisfy the third step of the McDonnell Douglas test. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal certified a question regarding the correct standard to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that section 1102.6 provides the governing framework for the presentation and evaluation of whistleblower retaliation claims brought under section 1102.5. View "Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal of the district court's judgment deeming his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal without prejudice withdrawn and compelling arbitration. The court held that the district court properly retained jurisdiction following the notice of dismissal to conduct a Cheeks review of any possible settlement of plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act claims; and that the district court reasonably interpreted his request to continue the litigation as a withdrawal of the notice of dismissal, and, in its discretion, deemed it withdrawn. Therefore, plaintiff failed to take a timely appeal of the order deeming his notice of dismissal withdrawn, and the order to stay and compel arbitration is an unappealable interlocutory order. View "Samake v. Thunder Lube, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Department of Workforce Development rejecting Eden Senior Care's application to succeed the unemployment insurance account of Friendly Village Nursing and Rehab's previous owner, holding that Eden failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for the untimely filing of its application.After purchasing Friendly Village, Eden untimely filed its successorship application. The Labor and Industry Review Commission concluded that the record was insufficient to establish that Eden's application was late because of excusable neglect. Eden appealed, arguing that the Commission erred in failing to consider whether the interests-of-justice factors supported a finding of excusable neglect. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission applied the correct legal standard; and (2) there was no basis on which to excuse Eden's neglect in filing its successorship application after the statutory deadline. View "Friendly Village Nursing and Rehab, LLC v. State, Department of Workforce Development" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Medical Commission upholding the denial of Appellant's request for benefits, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission's denial of coverage.In 2007, Appellant suffered a compensable injury to her left knee. More than a decade later, Appellant submitted requests to the Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division to cover treatment for her right knee, ankles and back and further applied for permanent total disability (PTD) benefits. The Division denied both requests, and the Commission affirmed the ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission's findings that (1) Appellant's right knee, ankle, and back injuries were not second compensable injuries; and (2) Appellant did not qualify for PTD benefits under the odd lot doctrine. View "Ross v. State, ex rel., Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a bridal designer and social media influencer, appealed the district court's preliminary injunction (PI), based in part on an employment agreement between plaintiff and JLM, ordering plaintiff not to compete with JLM through the end of her contractual term, enjoining her from using her name and its derivatives in trade or commerce, and granting JLM exclusive control over three disputed social media accounts for the duration of the litigation.The Second Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering the noncompete and name-rights prongs of the injunction, which properly flow from JLM's likely meritorious claims against plaintiff for breach of contract. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in rejecting plaintiff's contention that JLM breached the contract by refusing to pay her after she stopped working. However, the court concluded that the district court exceeded its discretion by transferring exclusive control over the disputed social media accounts to JLM while explicitly declining to assess whether JLM would likely succeed on its claim that it owned the accounts. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman" on Justia Law

Vines sued under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code, 12900, alleging he was a 59-year-old Black man who had been subjected during his employment with O’Reilly to discriminatory treatment and harassment by his supervisor and others because of his age and race. His supervisor allegedly created false and misleading reviews of Vines, yelled at him, and denied his requests for training given to younger, non-Black employees. Although Vines repeatedly complained to management, O’Reilly took no remedial action.A jury awarded damages on his claims for retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation, Vines moved for an award of $809,681.25 in attorney fees. The trial court awarded only $129,540.44, based in part on its determination the unsuccessful discrimination and harassment claims were not sufficiently related or factually intertwined with the successful retaliation claims. The court of appeal reversed the post-judgment fee order and remanded for recalculation of Vines’s fee award. The trial court erred in finding the claims not sufficiently related or factually intertwined. Evidence of the facts regarding the alleged underlying discriminatory and harassing conduct about which Vines had complained was relevant to establish, for the retaliation cause of action, the reasonableness of his belief that conduct was unlawful. View "Vines v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law

Nadendla, a physician, is of Indian origin. Nadendla was a member of WakeMed’s hospital's medical staff where she was granted clinical privileges in 2010, In 2017, citing “clinical concerns,” WakeMed informed Nadendla that she would not be reappointed clinical privileges; her appointment on the medical staff would expire. Nadendla requested a hearing, pursuant to the Bylaws. She alleges that WakeMed’s actions during the hearing process “exhibited an abject lack of fairness” and deprived her of adequate process in contravention of the Bylaws.Nadendla sued the hospital under 42 U.S.C. 1981, which guarantees to all persons in the United States “the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.’” The district court initially ruled that Nadendla sufficiently stated a section 1981 claim and state-law claims for breach of contract and for arbitrary and capricious conduct, but subsequently dismissed Nadendla’s section 1981 claim. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part. The district court had the discretion to revisit its prior order and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. The complaint contained extensive, specific allegations regarding WakeMed’s failure to abide by the Bylaws but details regarding race are conspicuously absent. The court reversed the dismissal of Nadendla’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. View "Nadendla v. WakeMed" on Justia Law