Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Karl Rabenhorst, a former Navy officer employed by FEMA, alleged that he was subjected to age and sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation after being removed from a Puerto Rico disaster relief operation and later suspended without pay. The incidents leading to these adverse actions included reprimands for inappropriate interactions with state officials and insubordination, such as sending unauthorized emails and making disrespectful remarks. During the Puerto Rico deployment, Rabenhorst used derogatory language toward younger female coworkers, which prompted his removal from the operation.After his removal, Rabenhorst filed internal complaints, including a grievance with the DHS Office of Equal Rights, alleging discrimination and retaliation. FEMA investigated and ultimately denied his claims, issuing a final agency decision in 2021. Rabenhorst then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, asserting violations of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the Secretary of Homeland Security, finding that Rabenhorst failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as he did not meet his employer’s legitimate expectations and could not show that similarly situated employees outside his protected classes were treated more favorably. The court also concluded that Rabenhorst provided no evidence of an objectively hostile work environment or that any adverse conduct was based on his age or sex. Regarding retaliation, the court found no causal link between his protected activity and the suspension decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed, holding that Rabenhorst did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation. View "Rabenhorst v. Noem" on Justia Law

Jennifer Gates, a former loan officer at VIP Mortgage, claimed that VIP violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Arizona state law by failing to pay her required overtime wages. She alleged that she was made to work more than forty hours per week but was instructed to record only eight-hour days on her timesheet. After her resignation in September 2022, Gates initiated arbitration as required by her employment agreement. VIP responded with counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, but these were later settled, with both parties agreeing to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs for the counterclaims.The arbitration took place under the Federal Arbitration Act, and the arbitrator ultimately issued an award in favor of Gates, granting her unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. Despite the prior stipulation regarding counterclaims, the arbitrator did not distinguish between time spent on Gates’s claims and VIP’s counterclaims when awarding attorneys’ fees. VIP petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Arizona to vacate the award, arguing that the arbitrator erred by awarding attorneys’ fees that included time spent on the counterclaims. The district court found the arbitrator’s decision to be detailed and reasoned, concluding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law or act irrationally.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court held that federal courts may vacate arbitration awards based on a factual error only in rare cases where the error involves a “legally dispositive fact” that was obvious and intentionally ignored by the arbitrator. Here, although the factual error was legally dispositive, the arbitrator’s failure to recall the fee stipulation was not so obvious or intentional as to warrant vacatur. The arbitration award was confirmed. View "VIP MORTGAGE INCORPORATED V. GATES" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was employed as a conductor for a railway company and alleged that he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for engaging in activity protected by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). Specifically, he claimed that in January 2019 he refused to allow the train’s engineer to perform a task—lining a switch—due to safety concerns, opting instead to perform the procedure himself. The plaintiff asserted that this refusal was in defiance of a purported “standing order” directing engineers to line switches to expedite train movements. He argued that allowing engineers to leave the controls unattended while lining switches created a hazardous condition.Following his termination for a separate incident in February 2019, the plaintiff pursued complaints through several forums. First, he challenged his dismissal before a Public Law Board, which found that he had violated safety rules but ordered reinstatement without backpay due to disproportionate punishment. He also filed a complaint with OSHA, asserting retaliation for reporting safety concerns and insisting on safe practices. An administrative law judge (ALJ) subsequently dismissed this complaint, finding no credible evidence of a standing order, no proof that the plaintiff had refused to work as required by the statute, and no evidence of a hazardous safety condition at the relevant time.The plaintiff then brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, which granted summary judgment to the railway company. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, but on different grounds. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to establish that he engaged in protected activity under 49 U.S.C. § 20109(b)(1)(B) because he did not refuse to work and was not confronting an imminent hazardous condition. Therefore, he could not make a prima facie case of retaliation under the FRSA. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Berberich v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company" on Justia Law

Two commercial truck drivers, residents of Connecticut, began working as delivery drivers for a baked goods company through a staffing agency, classified as W-2 employees. After several months, the company required them to create corporations and enter into “Distributor Agreements” in their capacities as presidents of those corporations to continue working. These agreements included mandatory arbitration clauses and disclaimed an employee-employer relationship. Despite the new contractual arrangement, the drivers’ daily responsibilities remained unchanged, consisting of picking up baked goods from the company’s warehouse and delivering them to retail outlets.Seeking relief under Connecticut wage and overtime laws, the drivers initiated a putative class action in Connecticut Superior Court. The baked goods company removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, invoking diversity jurisdiction. The company then moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the contractual arbitration clauses. The drivers opposed, arguing that the agreements were “contracts of employment” exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) under § 1, that they were not bound in their individual capacities, and that the clauses were unenforceable. The District Court ruled in favor of the company, granting the motion to compel arbitration, and held that the agreements were not “contracts of employment” under § 1 of the FAA.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s order de novo. The Second Circuit held that the agreements, though signed by corporate entities created at the company’s request, were “contracts of employment” within the meaning of § 1 of the FAA, as they were contracts for the performance of work by workers. Consequently, the court vacated the District Court’s order compelling arbitration and remanded for further proceedings. View "Silva v. Schmidt Baking Distribution, LLC" on Justia Law

Elena Mukhina, a Russian national who practices Russian Folk Christianity and has limited English proficiency, worked at Walmart in the apparel department where she interacted with customers. During her employment, she reported experiencing daily mockery and rude behavior from both customers and coworkers due to her inability to speak English fluently. She requested a transfer to the night shift, which was granted several weeks later, and her working conditions improved, though some negative treatment persisted. Mukhina also requested time off for New Year’s Eve, which she described as an important holiday for Russians. Her supervisor denied the request based on a first-come, first-served policy. Mukhina took the day off anyway and received attendance points per Walmart policy. After filing an ethics complaint, she experienced mixed changes in coworker behavior and eventually quit; Walmart then formally terminated her employment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama reviewed Mukhina’s claims of hostile work environment based on national origin, religious discrimination for denial of holiday leave, and retaliatory discharge. The court granted summary judgment for Walmart, finding that Mukhina did not present sufficient evidence that the alleged harassment was based on her national origin, that any harassment was severe or pervasive, or that Walmart was liable for coworker or customer conduct. The court also held that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for religious discrimination and did not inform Walmart of the religious nature of her holiday request. On retaliation, the court found no causal connection between her complaints and any adverse employment action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit held that Mukhina failed to present substantial evidence of a hostile work environment or retaliation, and failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her religious discrimination claim. View "Mukhina v. Walmart, Inc." on Justia Law

A public hospital in New York contracted with a new parking management company to provide valet services, replacing a previous vendor whose employees were represented by a union and were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). After winning the contract, the new company considered retaining the existing unionized valet attendants but ultimately did not hire any of them, despite initially recruiting them. Instead, the company posted job listings for the same roles and hired other workers, leaving the former unionized employees without jobs. Evidence suggested that the new company’s refusal to hire was motivated by the employees’ union affiliation.After the union filed an unfair labor practice charge, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a petition with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking a temporary injunction under § 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The requested injunction would have required the company to reinstate the discharged employees, recognize the union, and bargain in good faith. The district court denied the petition in a brief text order, finding no cognizable irreparable harm and noting the delay in seeking relief. Meanwhile, an Administrative Law Judge found that the company violated the Act by refusing to hire the unionized employees and failing to recognize and bargain with the union.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial. The Second Circuit held that the district court’s order violated Rule 52(a)(2) by failing to provide adequate findings and conclusions. The Second Circuit further found that the Regional Director had met all four prongs required for a § 10(j) injunction: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. The court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for entry of the requested injunction. View "Poor v. Parking Systems Plus, Inc." on Justia Law

An employee working as a mechanic suffered a back injury at work in June 2020 but did not initially lose wages because his employer moved him to a light-duty position with full salary. After more than two years, the employer eliminated the light-duty position and stopped paying his salary. At that point, the employer began paying the employee temporary total disability benefits for approximately two years. When those benefits stopped in March 2024, the employee filed a disputed claim for compensation in July 2024, more than four years after the original injury.The employer responded before the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWC), District 2, by raising an exception of prescription, arguing the claim was filed outside the one-year period allowed by Louisiana law. The OWC judge denied the exception, finding that the employer’s initiation and continuation of disability benefit payments well after the prescriptive period had run was a clear renunciation of prescription. The employer sought supervisory review from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, which denied relief. The employer then applied for a writ to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which was granted.The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that, under Louisiana’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the prescriptive period for filing a claim is not tolled merely because the employee initially continues to earn full wages. However, the Court further held that when an employer initiates and continues regular workers’ compensation payments after the prescriptive period has run, such conduct constitutes a tacit renunciation of prescription. This means the employer waives the right to assert prescription as a defense. Therefore, the Court affirmed the OWC’s denial of the employer’s exception of prescription and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. AECOM Amentum Government Services" on Justia Law

Aramark, a company that self-funds employee health benefit plans governed by ERISA, contracted with Aetna to serve as third-party administrator for these plans. Under the agreement, Aetna was responsible for processing claims, managing provider networks, and handling various administrative tasks. Aramark alleged that Aetna breached its fiduciary duties by paying improper or fraudulent claims, retaining undisclosed fees, providing inadequate subrogation services, making post-adjudication adjustments detrimental to Aramark, and commingling plan assets.Aramark filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting ERISA claims for breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions. Aetna responded by seeking to compel arbitration in a Connecticut federal district court, relying on the arbitration clause in the parties’ Master Services Agreement (MSA), and moved to stay the Texas proceedings pending arbitration. The district court denied the stay, holding that the parties had not “clearly and unmistakably” delegated the threshold question of arbitrability to an arbitrator. The court found that the MSA's arbitration clause carved out disputes seeking equitable relief—such as Aramark’s ERISA claims—from arbitration and that these claims were equitable in nature.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration de novo. It held that the threshold issue of arbitrability was not clearly and unmistakably delegated to an arbitrator under the terms of the MSA, especially given the placement of the carve-out for equitable relief. The Fifth Circuit further held that Aramark’s ERISA claims constituted equitable, not legal, relief under Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders, finding no error or abuse of discretion. View "Aramark Services v. Aetna Life Insurance" on Justia Law

A former professional football player sought disability benefits from a retirement plan administered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), arguing that he qualified for the highest tier of benefits due to multiple concussions suffered during his career. The plan granted him some benefits but denied the top category. He filed suit, claiming improper denial of benefits and lack of a full and fair review.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the plan to award the higher benefits and granting approximately $1.2 million in attorney’s fees, plus $600,000 in conditional fees. On appeal, however, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to reclassification to the highest benefits tier due to his failure to immediately appeal the denial, making any further review futile. The panel remanded for entry of judgment for the plan.On remand, the district court nonetheless reaffirmed its prior fee award, reasoning that the plaintiff’s success in exposing flaws in the plan’s review process, as reflected in favorable factual findings, constituted sufficient success to support attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, reviewing the fee award for abuse of discretion, reversed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), attorney’s fees may only be awarded if a party achieves “some degree of success on the merits,” which requires more than favorable factual findings or moral victories. Because the plaintiff received no relief—monetary, injunctive, or declaratory—the award of attorney’s fees was improper. The court reversed the fee award. View "Cloud v. NFL Player Retirement Plan" on Justia Law

A physician contracted with two medical staffing companies to provide emergency medicine services at certain hospitals. After raising concerns in late 2020 about allegedly fraudulent billing practices and the mismanagement of federal COVID-19 relief funds, the physician was told in early 2021 that her contracts would not be renewed unless she accepted a significant pay cut. In March 2021, she discovered that she was no longer scheduled for work. Attempts to seek clarification were unsuccessful, and in June 2021, she received a letter confirming her employment was considered terminated as of March 3, 2021.She filed suit in the Henrico County Circuit Court on April 1, 2022, alleging, among other claims, a violation of the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act (VWPA) for retaliatory termination. The staffing companies demurred and then filed a plea in bar, arguing that her claim was time barred because the alleged retaliatory act occurred more than one year before she filed suit. The circuit court denied the plea in bar, and on interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed. The Court of Appeals distinguished the case from Rivera v. Mantech International Corporation, reasoning that the physician was not given explicit notice of a definitive adverse employment action, and thus the statute of limitations did not begin to run in March 2021.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and held that under the VWPA, the statute of limitations begins to run when the employer commits a prohibited retaliatory action—not when the employee feels its full impact or receives definitive notice. The Court found that removal from the work schedule in March 2021 constituted the prohibited action. As a result, the physician’s claim, filed more than one year later, was time barred. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case. View "Ingleside v. Hollis" on Justia Law