Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Burlington appealed the trial court's order granting in part and denying in part its special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the antiSLAPP statute). A former employee had filed a putative class action complaint alleging that Burlington forces its employees to pay for business losses incurred for common on-the-job mistakes by misusing California's shoplifting statute. In a prior opinion, the court reversed the lower court's determination that Burlington's conduct amounted to extortion as a matter of law and was therefore unprotected by the anti-SLAPP statute. On remand, the trial court sustained Burlington's motion to strike two of the four causes of action in the complaint, and denied the motion with respect to the other two causes of action.In the published portion of the opinion, the court concluded that the employee's pleadings, declaration, and accompanying evidence support her Labor Code section 2802 claim that she personally incurred a necessary loss in direct consequence of the discharge of her duties or obedience to the directions of her employer. Therefore, plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient claim and made a prima facie factual showing sufficient to survive Burlington's special motion to strike. The court affirmed the order in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gallano v. Burlington Coat Factory of California, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, AmeriHome, in a putative class action lawsuit for unpaid overtime compensation and unlawful business practices. The superior court granted AmeriHome's motion to compel arbitration, ordered arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims, and dismissed the class claims.In light of the uncertainty of the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's appeal from the order compelling arbitration and the absence of any delay or prejudice our intervention at this stage would cause, the court found this an appropriate case in which to exercise its discretion to treat the appeal from that order as a petition for writ of mandate. The court denied the petition on the merits, concluding that Labor Code section 229 does not exempt plaintiff's wage claim from arbitration. In this case, neither the choice-of-law provision nor the arbitration agreement contains "unambiguous language" making it "unmistakably clear" that the parties intended to incorporate section 229 while agreeing to arbitrate "any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to" plaintiff's employment at AmeriHome.The court also concluded that the superior court properly exercised its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure 1281.2 to order arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims. The court explained that the superior court reasonably concluded the conditions for invoking the third-party litigation exception did not exist because plaintiff's lawsuit did not arise out of the same transaction as the Brooks action, and there was no likelihood of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. Furthermore, even when the third-party litigation exception applies, the superior court has discretion to "order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration." Therefore, the court affirmed the order dismissing the putative class claims, dismissed the order compelling arbitration, and denied the petition for writ of mandate. View "Nixon v. AmeriHome Mortgage Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss this amended complaint brought by Plaintiff seeking a determination that Defendants - the City of Wilmington, the Wilmington Police Department, and the mayor of the City - breached the collective bargaining agreement between the police union and the City when he was terminated for an alleged violation of the City's resident requirement, holding that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.Specifically, the Court of Chancery held that Plaintiff's claims fell within the grievance procedure and were therefore subject to arbitration, and where Plaintiff did not follow the grievance process that was provided in the collective bargaining agreement, a complete remedy otherwise existed in the form of the grievance process outlined in the agreement. View "Kroll v. City of Wilmington" on Justia Law

Lindsey, a registered nurse, alleged that, after 17 years of service, her employer, BMA, terminated her because she was compelled to take Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1) leave in response to a series of personal tragedies that included a fire in her home and the hospitalization of her son. BMA claimed she was fired for poor attendance and missed deadlines.The district court granted BMA summary judgment on her FMLA discriminatory retaliation claim. The Fifth Circuit reversed. Lindsey’s employment records suggest BMA offered attendance issues as a post hoc rationalization to justify her firing. BMA was not able to list specific dates or times of her purported absences; summary judgment evidence suggested that the deadlines were hortatory rather than mandatory and that she was never informed that failure to meet these deadlines could result in discipline of any kind, let alone termination. BMA did not follow its own progressive discipline policy, which instructs that “corrective action be escalating.” View "Lindsey v. Bio-Medical Applications of Louisiana, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered two questions certified by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by holding that publicly funded work on rolling stock, like train cars, does not fall under the statutory definition of "public works" and that the work on rolling rock in this case did not qualify as "public work."At issue were two aspects of a project to design and install a comprehensive communications network to prevent train collections and other dangerous movements called field work and onboard work. Field work included building and outfitting radio towers on land adjacent to train tracks, and onboard work involved installing electronic components on train cars and locomotives. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant, which subcontracted to install system components on trains and rail cars. Plaintiff sued Defendant for failing to pay prevailing wages. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluding that onboard work did not fall within the scope of the prevailing wage law. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit asked whether the onboard work for the project fell within the definition of "public works" under Cal. Labor Code 1720(a)(1). The Supreme Court answered that the onboard work performed in this case was not itself "public work." View "Busker v. Wabtec" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by holding that Cal. Labor Code 1772 does not expand the categories of public work that trigger the obligation to pay at least the prevailing wage under Cal. Labor Code 1771.Plaintiffs, unionized engineers who operated milling equipment to break up existing roadbeds, brought a suit in federal court alleging, inter alia, failure to pay the prevailing wage for loading an equipment from an offsite location onto trailers and bringing it to the job site - known as mobilization - done in connection with public works projects. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, ruling that mobilization was not covered by prevailing wage protection. Plaintiffs appealed the mobilization decision, and the Ninth Circuit certified the question of whether the mobilization activity was covered by section 1772. The Supreme Court held that, where there was no contention that mobilization qualified as "public work," section 1772 did not provide a basis for requiring Plaintiffs to be paid the prevailing wage for that work. View "Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court ruling that Baltimore City had breached its contract with two out of three sub-classes of police officers and firefighters and finding that Ordinance 10-306 retrospectively divested the members of those sub-classes of benefits they had earned, holding that there were no factual or legal errors in the circuit court's rulings.Baltimore City maintained a Fire and Police Employees' Retirement System (the Plan) to provide pension benefits to members of the City's police and fire departments. In 2010, the City enacted Ordinance 10-306, under which the City changed some of the key terms of the Plan. Plaintiffs commenced a class action lawsuit alleging claims for declaratory relief and breach of contract. The circuit court certified a class of plaintiffs and three sub-classes: a retired sub-class, a retirement-eligible sub-class, and an active sub-class. The circuit court granted judgment for all but the active sub-class, ruling that, as to currently employed members who had not yet reached retirement eligibility, Ordinance 10-306 did not affect vested benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Ordinance retrospectively divested retired and retirement-eligible members of the benefits they had earned. View "Cherry v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed an arbitration award that reinstated a member of the union to her former position after she was discharged by the company. The court concluded that the parties agreement authorized the arbitrator to determine whether there has been a violation of the parties' agreement within the allegations set forth in the grievance. In this case, the parties bargained for the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement's just cause provision and the provision does not specify that the same just cause is sufficient to justify all types of adverse action.The court also concluded that the arbitrator's award drew its essence from the parties' agreement. Finally, the court concluded that the record does not establish that the employee committed abuse as defined by the cited statutes, or that allowing her to return to work after a suspension violates public policy. View "WM Crittenden Operations, LLC v. United Food and Commercial Workers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's complaint alleging that Defendant failed to pay her wages in accordance with Minnesota law, holding that Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment.Plaintiff worked as an on-site property caretaker at an apartment complex owned by Defendant. Because she also lived in an apartment on the property, Plaintiff was compensated primarily with credits toward her monthly rent. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's use of rent credits to pay her wages violated Minnesota law and that Defendant failed to pay her for every hour she worked during her on-call shifts. The district court dismissed all three claims, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to Defendant. View "Hagen v. Steven Scott Management, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted Ridgewood's petition for review of the Board's order finding that Ridgewood committed several unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court agreed with Ridgewood that it did not coercively interrogate Preferred applicants during job interviews; that the Board's discriminatory hiring finding is not supported by substantial evidence; and that Ridgewood was not a Burns successor and was not obligated to recognize and bargain with the union or respond to the union's information requests. Accordingly, the court denied the Board's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Ridgewood Health Care Center, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law