Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

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

Cromer, formerly a “managing loan officer” for Union Home Mortgage, agreed to several restrictive covenants, including that he would “not become employed in the same or similar capacity” with a competitive entity. Cromer left Union and started working for Homeside Financial as a “non-producing” branch manager. Union sought a preliminary injunction to enforce Cromer’s restrictive covenants, citing the 2016 Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1836; the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act; the non-compete, confidentiality, and nonsolicitation covenants; the contractual duty of loyalty; and the common law duty of loyalty. Against Homeside, Union alleged tortious interference with business relationships and with contracts.The district court issued an injunction—without any time limitation—prohibiting Cromer, and anyone acting in concert, from “competing with Union Home.” The Sixth Circuit vacated. The injunction failed to satisfy the specificity requirements of FRCP 65(d)(1), was overbroad, and was otherwise improperly granted under the standard for preliminary injunctions. The broad prohibition covers any form of competition, irrespective of Cromer’s employer, job title, or duties, and created an inherent risk that the scope of the injunction exceeds the Agreement that the parties signed. The district court also failed to consider whether the non-compete covenant is reasonable and thus enforceable. View "Union Home Mortgage Corp. v. Cromer" on Justia Law

Supor, a construction contractor, got a job on New Jersey’s American Dream Project, a large retail development, and agreed to use truck drivers exclusively from one union and to contribute to the union drivers’ multiemployer pension fund. The project stalled. Supor stopped working with the union drivers and pulled out of the fund. The fund demanded $766,878, more than twice what Supor had earned on the project, as a withdrawal penalty for ending its pension payments without covering its share, citing the 1980 Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), amending ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1381. Under the MPPAA, employers who pull out early must pay a “withdrawal liability” based on unfunded vested benefits. Supor claimed the union had promised that it would not have to pay any penalty. The Fund argued that the statute requires “employer[s]” to arbitrate such disputes. Supor argued that it was not an employer under the Act.The district court sent the parties to arbitration, finding that an “employer” includes any entity obligated to contribute to a pension plan either as a direct employer or in the interest of an employer of the plan’s participants. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding the definition plausible, protective of the statutory scheme, and supported by three decades of consensus. View "J Supor & Son Trucking & Rigging Co., Inc. v. Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics sued the Iowa Board of Regents (“Board”), alleging state law claims. The Board removed the case to federal court after the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include a Fair Labor and Standards Act (“FLSA”) claim.The Board argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the FLSA claim because the Board has sovereign immunity. The court reasoned that FLSA overtime isn’t guaranteed for Board of Regents employees. And because its own pay agreements don’t separately provide FLSA overtime standards, the Board hasn’t consented to private accountability to those standards. A private cause of action cannot work as express consent to suits under the FLSA itself. Iowa courts retain the doctrine of constructive waiver of sovereign immunity.Further, though the University of Iowa system may benefit from the Board’s immunity at times, the University lacks independent authority to abrogate it. Finally, the court remanded for the district court to consider whether the legal consequences of the hospital’s policies can be attributed to the Board. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Melinda Myers v. Iowa Board of Regents" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the proper measure of damages for the private right of action for Wage Act violations under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 150 when the employer pays wages after the deadlines provided in the aCt but before the employee files a complaint is treble the amount of the late wages, not trebled interest.When Plaintiff was discharged from her employment with the City of Methuen the City owed her almost $9000 for accrued vacation time. While the Act required the City to pay this amount to Plaintiff on the day of her termination the City did not pay her until three weeks later. One year later, the City paid Plaintiff an amount representing the trebled interest for the three weeks between Plaintiff's termination and the payment of Plaintiff's vacation pay. Plaintiff subsequently brought this lawsuit. The superior court judge concluded that Plaintiff was only entitled to treble interest for the three-week delay in receiving her vacation pay. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case, holding that late-paid wages are "lost wages" for purposes of the Wage Act. View "Reuter v. City of Methuen" on Justia Law