Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, an African American clinical pharmacist, worked at a Department of Veterans Affairs facility in Illinois. He was the only African American pharmacist at his workplace and was employed on a yearlong probationary period. After receiving a “fully successful” performance review, his new supervisor criticized his productivity, which later improved. The plaintiff filed an internal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging race-based disparate treatment and retaliation by his supervisor, referencing racially charged remarks and disparate scrutiny. Weeks after the complaint, the department received anonymous reports of several medication errors allegedly committed by the plaintiff. He admitted to most of these errors in a subsequent investigatory meeting. Days after mediation regarding his EEO complaint, which he voluntarily withdrew, the plaintiff was terminated just before his probationary period ended.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the Department, dismissing both the race discrimination and retaliation claims. The district court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, as there was no evidence he was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside his protected class. The court also concluded that the Department’s stated reasons for termination—medication errors—were legitimate and not shown to be pretextual. The retaliation claim was rejected for lack of evidence showing a causal connection between the EEO complaint and his termination.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the Department’s stated nondiscriminatory reason for his termination was pretextual or that his protected activity was the but-for cause of his termination. The judgment for the Department was affirmed. View "Abayomi v Collins" on Justia Law

A firefighter with sixteen years of service in the Chicago Fire Department (“CFD”) was terminated after an investigation revealed that he had posted racially offensive and derogatory content on his public Facebook account. He openly identified himself as a CFD firefighter on his page, which included photos in uniform, and his posts targeted Black and Asian Americans, groups served by the CFD. The posts prompted complaints from members of the public, leading to an Office of Inspector General investigation. The investigation concluded that the firefighter’s posts undermined public trust and recommended his dismissal, which the Fire Commissioner approved. The firefighter unsuccessfully challenged his termination through arbitration.He then sued the City of Chicago and two CFD officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging his termination violated his First Amendment rights and challenging the City’s social media policy as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, holding that the firefighter’s posts were not protected by the First Amendment because they did not address matters of public concern. Alternatively, the court found that, even if the posts did touch on public concern, the City’s interest in departmental efficiency and maintaining public trust outweighed his free speech interests.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the district court erred in its analysis of public concern, concluding that the posts could be seen as addressing matters of public concern. However, applying the Pickering balancing test, the appellate court held that the City’s interests in preserving public trust, especially given the firefighter’s public identification with the CFD and the nature of his posts, outweighed his speech interests. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Inendino v Nance-Holt" on Justia Law

An employee was terminated from her position as a court officer after failing to comply with her employer’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. She had requested a religious exemption, submitting several documents in support, but her application was denied by the employer’s review committee. After resubmitting forms and additional statements, the employer maintained its denial and ultimately terminated her for noncompliance. Several months later, the vaccination requirement was rescinded, and terminated employees, including the plaintiff, were allowed to seek reinstatement.Following her termination, the plaintiff brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging a violation of Title VII due to the employer’s failure to accommodate her religious beliefs. The district court granted partial summary judgment in her favor, finding that she had established a prima facie case of religious discrimination based on the employer’s statements during discovery. The court also concluded that the employer had not shown that granting the accommodation would have been an undue hardship. The district court’s decisions rested in part on treating certain statements by the employer as judicial admissions regarding the adequacy of her exemption request.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the standard for a prima facie case for failure to accommodate religion under Title VII was changed by EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., requiring proof that the employee actually needed an accommodation and that the employer’s motive to avoid that accommodation was a factor in an adverse employment decision. The court found that the district court did not apply the correct standard and improperly treated discovery statements as judicial admissions. The Second Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bergin v. N.Y. State Unified Court System" on Justia Law

Derrick McCoy was employed as a Protective Services Officer by Paragon Systems, which provided security services for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at a Chicago Social Security field office. McCoy was terminated after an incident involving an unruly customer, during which he failed to properly restrain the individual and took photos with his personal device, violating established protocols. Paragon’s investigation concluded that McCoy did not follow procedures and terminated him. Through union grievance proceedings, Paragon agreed to reinstate McCoy if he obtained a favorable suitability determination from DHS. DHS, after reviewing the incident, issued an unfavorable suitability determination, making McCoy ineligible for reinstatement.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, heard McCoy’s lawsuit against DHS, in which he alleged unlawful age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). DHS moved for summary judgment, arguing McCoy could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment in DHS’s favor, finding no evidence that McCoy’s age was the reason for the adverse employment action. The court also declined to consider a proposed comparator, Lattrice Haywood, because McCoy had not disclosed her during discovery.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that, even assuming DHS could be considered McCoy’s employer, McCoy failed to provide evidence that DHS’s suitability determination was based on his age. The court found no material issue of fact supporting age discrimination and affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that McCoy had not met the requirements for a prima facie case under the ADEA or provided sufficient evidence under the holistic standard. View "McCoy v. Mullin" on Justia Law

A group of employees working for a private contractor, which operated and maintained a municipal wastewater treatment facility under a long-term contract with the local water and sewer commission, claimed they were entitled to be paid prevailing wages for their work. The contract, authorized under a special legislative act, included both initial capital improvements (which were subcontracted out and paid at prevailing wage rates) and ongoing operations, maintenance, repair, and replacement work, which was paid according to collective bargaining agreements. The employees performed work in the latter category and argued that the prevailing wage requirements should apply to their activities.After the employees brought suit in Massachusetts Superior Court, the case was removed to the United States District Court. Both sides filed for summary judgment. The District Court judge ruled for the contractor, finding that the employees' work was not covered by the phrase "construction and design of improvements" in the special act, and therefore was not subject to the prevailing wage law. The employees appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified two questions of Massachusetts law to the Supreme Judicial Court.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the phrase "construction and design of improvements" in the special act is not synonymous with the broader definition of "construction" in the prevailing wage law and does not include ordinary repairs, routine inspections, day-to-day operations and maintenance, or ordinary replacements. The Court further concluded that its previous decision in Metcalf v. BSC Group, Inc., 492 Mass. 676 (2023), which addressed different statutory provisions relating to professional services contracts, does not control or render the special act incompatible with the prevailing wage law. View "Nicholls v. Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Two individuals, who were part-time police officers, submitted claims against a police protection district and associated personnel, alleging retaliation and harassment following their whistleblowing activities related to fiscal mismanagement and conflicts of interest involving a former police commissioner and chief of police. Their claim forms described various acts of misconduct but, instead of specifying when these actions occurred, stated that the “loss is ongoing” and provided no date or date range for the alleged conduct.The Superior Court of San Mateo County reviewed the claims and found them deficient for failing to comply with California Government Code section 910, which requires that a claim state the “date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.” Despite being notified of the deficiency and given an opportunity to provide date information, the petitioners did not amend their claims. The trial court sustained demurrers filed by the district and other defendants, concluding the forms neither complied nor substantially complied with the statutory requirements, and denied leave to amend for several causes of action.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the trial court’s orders after the petitioners sought writ relief. The appellate court held that claim forms stating only “Numerous—Loss is ongoing” without any specific dates or date ranges do not satisfy section 910’s requirements, nor do they substantially comply. The court emphasized that even in cases of continuing or ongoing misconduct, claimants must provide at least some date or date range to allow the public entity to investigate the claim. The petition for writ of mandate was denied, and the appellate court affirmed that the trial court correctly sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. View "Khedr v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A professor at Dartmouth College’s Thayer School of Engineering, who is Muslim and of Arab-Egyptian descent, applied for tenure after six years of employment, consistent with his offer letter. He alleged that he was discouraged from advising a Muslim student group, removed from a research project, and denied access to campus data, which he believed impeded his work. His tenure application was reviewed by faculty who cited concerns about inflated accomplishments, high self-citation rates, less competitive grant funding, and poor teaching evaluations. The faculty voted overwhelmingly to deny tenure. An internal review committee found procedural errors in how the consequences of tenure denial were explained, allowing him to reapply, but found no discrimination. Separately, a student accused the professor of research misconduct for not crediting him as an author on a collaborative paper. An investigation committee ultimately found no research misconduct but concluded the professor’s conduct was unethical and recommended he not be allowed to collaborate with Dartmouth in the future.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted summary judgment to Dartmouth on all claims of discrimination and retaliation, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The professor appealed, challenging both the discrimination and retaliation rulings, as well as a discovery order.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of pretext or discriminatory animus under both Title VII and New Hampshire’s employment discrimination statute. The court determined that differences in qualifications and procedural issues did not support an inference of discrimination or retaliation. The summary judgment was affirmed, and the challenge to the discovery order was deemed moot due to the affirmed judgment. View "Farid v. Trustees of Dartmouth College" on Justia Law

John Buccieri, who is deaf and communicates primarily through American Sign Language, applied for a Chair Car Driver position with Brewster Ambulance Service, Inc., a medical transportation provider in Massachusetts. The job required frequent communications with dispatch, patients, and facility staff, as well as monitoring patients for emergencies. Buccieri requested to use Video Relay Services (VRS) and a phone holder as accommodations to facilitate communication with dispatch. Brewster considered his application and allowed him a ride-along in a Chair Car, but concerns arose about his ability to communicate and respond to emergencies, especially with patients and staff. Brewster ultimately declined to hire Buccieri, citing safety and operational concerns, and explored but rejected alternative positions for him.Buccieri sued Brewster in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to hire and failure to engage in the interactive process required by the ADA. The case proceeded to a jury trial, which found for Brewster on the failure-to-hire claim, concluding that accommodating Buccieri would have imposed an undue hardship or posed a direct threat. However, the jury found for Buccieri on the interactive process claim, indicating Brewster had not sufficiently engaged in dialogue to identify reasonable accommodations.Following the verdict, Brewster filed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law. The district court granted the motion, setting aside the jury's finding on the interactive process claim, and entered judgment for Brewster on all counts. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s order. The court held that, based on the evidence, no reasonable jury could conclude that a reasonable accommodation existed that would have allowed Buccieri to perform the essential communications functions of the driver positions without undue hardship to Brewster. View "Buccieri v. Brewster Ambulance Service, Inc." on Justia Law

A physician was employed by a medical group and its affiliated healthcare organization when they implemented a COVID-19 vaccination policy requiring employees to either be vaccinated or obtain a medical or religious exemption. The physician objected to the policy on scientific and religious grounds and engaged in internal advocacy, including meetings with leadership and organizing a petition among medical staff. She also communicated with a disbarred attorney who was promoting litigation against the vaccine mandate, forwarding confidential internal emails and documents to him to build his case. Although she was granted a religious exemption, she was subsequently terminated for cause, with the employer citing misappropriation of company property, policy violations, disruptive conduct, and breach of loyalty.After exhausting administrative remedies, the physician filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, asserting federal claims for retaliation under Title VII and the ADA, and state claims for retaliation, discharge against public policy, breach of contract, tortious interference, and declaratory relief from her non-compete clause. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, finding no violation of state or federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that the physician did not engage in protected activity under Title VII or the ADA, as her conduct did not qualify under either the participation or opposition clauses. Her state retaliation claims failed for the same reasons. The court also ruled that Kentucky’s wrongful discharge tort applies only to at-will employees, and her contract employment precluded such a claim. Finally, it found no breach of contract, as her conduct violated company policies and justified termination for cause. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "DiChiara v. Summit Medical Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Infosys Technologies Limited, Inc. and Infosys Public Services, Inc. are global consulting and technology companies with substantial operations in the United States. Four individuals of non-South Asian descent, either former employees or applicants, brought suit against Infosys alleging they faced discrimination based on race and national origin. The plaintiffs pointed to various employment actions: one was terminated after a poor performance review coinciding with a reduction in force, another was not hired after failing to demonstrate required technical skills, a third was discharged from a temporary position, and the fourth claimed harassment and ultimately resigned, alleging a hostile work environment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin reviewed the case. During discovery, plaintiffs relied heavily on an expert report by David Neumark, who used a “name-matching” methodology to identify South Asian employees and applicants in Infosys’s demographic data. The district court excluded Neumark’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, finding him unqualified and his methodology unreliable. The court denied class certification, summary judgment supplementation with late-discovered demographic data, and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Infosys on all claims, including pattern and practice, disparate treatment, and disparate impact.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed all district court decisions. The Seventh Circuit held that exclusion of Neumark’s expert testimony was within the district court’s discretion, given his lack of qualifications and unreliable methodology. Without that testimony, plaintiffs could not satisfy the requirements for class certification or prove disparate impact. The Seventh Circuit also held that plaintiffs failed to rebut Infosys’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment decisions in their individual disparate treatment claims, and that the evidence did not support a constructive discharge. The district court’s rulings were affirmed in full. View "Koehler v Infosys Technologies Limited, Inc." on Justia Law