Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

A Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim is precluded by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) when the right or duty upon which the claim is based is created by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or resolution of the claim substantially depends on analysis of a CBA.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Columbia Export's action under RICO against the union and individual union workers. Applying Hubbard v. United Airlines, Inc., 927 F.2d 1094 (9th Cir. 1991), the panel concluded that the district court correctly determined that Columbia Export's RICO claims required interpretation of the CBA under which the workers were employed, that the CBA provided a process for arbitration of disputes, and that the LMRA precluded court adjudication of the RICO claims before the arbitration process had been exhausted. View "Columbia Export Terminal, LLC v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of BNSF in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) under Nebraska law. The court concluded that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) divested the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's constructive discharge claim and thus the claim was properly dismissed.However, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the IIED claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because that claim can be resolved interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Nevertheless, the court concluded that dismissal was appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) because the complaint failed to state a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Nebraska law no matter what the collective bargaining agreement says. In this case, plaintiff alleged that BNSF or its employees disciplined and fired him without cause and berated him with expletive laced language and threats of physical violence. The court explained that it is unnecessary to interpret the collective bargaining agreement to conclude that these allegations do not support a reasonable inference of liability. Rather, plaintiff's allegations of discipline and termination without cause are insufficient to generate a reasonable inference of liability because discipline and termination without cause are not so outrageous that they give rise to a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Nebraska law. View "Richardson v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were employees of Buffalo Wild Wings Restaurants owned and/or operated by defendants. In their lawsuit against defendants, plaintiffs asserted individual and class claims under various provisions of the Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law, and claims for violations of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The trial court certified eight classes and two subclasses, but later decertified all classes except for a subclass of dual rate employees who allegedly were underpaid by defendants for overtime hours worked. We refer to this subclass as the dual rate overtime subclass. The issue presented by this appeal was whether defendant employers violated California law in their method of calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of compensating overtime hours of employees who worked at different rates of pay within a single pay period (dual rate employees). Defendants used the rate-in-effect method, by which dual rate employees were paid for overtime hours based on the rate in effect when the overtime hours began. Plaintiffs contended California law required defendants to use the weighted average method, by which dual rate employees were paid for overtime based on an hourly rate calculated by adding all hours worked in one pay period and dividing that number into the employee’s total compensation for the pay period. The trial court found, among other things, that defendants did not violate California employment law by using the rate-in-effect method for calculating the overtime rate of pay. Based on the ruling in the bench trial, the trial court decertified the dual rate overtime subclass and dismissed the PAGA claims. Plaintiffs appealed the order decertifying the dual rate overtime subclass and the order dismissing the PAGA claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed: California law did not mandate the use of the weighted average method, and defendants’ dual rate employees, including plaintiffs, overall received net greater overtime pay under the rate-in-effect method than they would have received under the weighted average method. View "Levanoff v. Dragas" on Justia Law

Local 2, representing carpenters and workers in related industries, is a local affiliate of IKORCC, which is an affiliated regional union of UBC. Barger has been a Local 2 member of Local 2. In 2007-2015, he worked intermittently as a carpenter for SPI, whose client owned and operated the Zimmer Power Station. Barger worked at Zimmer in 2014-2015. After being laid off, Barger called Zimmer’s Maintenance Manager, Lind, asking for a job. When Lind rejected Barger’s request, Barger responded that “[SPI is] stealing money from you” by falsifying hours. Barger told Meier, an IKORCC business agent, that he had told Lind about SPI’s overbilling. Barger said that it was worth the harm to other union members “to get even with” SPI. Meier filed a charge with IKORCC against Barger for violating the UBC Constitution by “Causing Dissension,” and failing to use “every honorable means to procure employment for Brother and Sister Members.” IKORCC fined Barger $5,000; UBC vacated the fine.Meanwhile, ESS hired Barger as an independent contractor. ESS assigned Barger to work at Zimmer. When he arrived, he was denied entry. ESS subsequently stopped offering him assignments. Barger sued, alleging violations of his free speech rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(2). The district court granted the defendants summary judgment.The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. Barger’s speech is protected by LMRDA section 101(a)(2) under the form-content-context test; the content of Barger’s speech was of union concern. The defendants had not raised the right of a union to adapt and enforce reasonable rules. View "Barger v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America" on Justia Law

Steve Lands appealed summary judgment entered in favor of Betty Ward d/b/a Lucky B's Trucking ("Lucky B") in a suit he filed seeking damages for injuries sustained on the job. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Lucky B on both of Lands's claims against it -- negligence and wantonness -- because it held that Lucky B did not owe Lands a duty. Tennessee Valley Land and Timber, LLC ("TVL&T"), contracted with Lands to haul timber for processing at various locations in the Southeast. Kenneth Ward, the owner of TVL&T, provided Lands with a 1994 Peterbilt 379 Truck ("the truck") to make the deliveries. According to Lands, when Kenneth first provided the truck, he told Lands that it was sometimes difficult to start. If the truck would not start, Kenneth instructed Lands to use a "hot-wire" method, which required Lands to use a 12-inch piece of partially exposed wire to "jump" the truck while its ignition was left in the on position. Although TVL&T allowed Lands to use the truck for work, the truck was owned by Lucky B. After a delivery, Lands had to hot-wire the truck to start it. Lands put the truck in neutral, engaged the parking brake, and got out of the truck to use the hot-wire method. With both feet on the front-wheel axle and a cigarette lighter in hand, he lifted the hood and connected the 12-inch piece of wire to the firewall solenoid. The truck jumped back to life and sent Lands to the ground. The truck then rolled over Lands, severing the muscles in the lower half of his leg. Lands sued Lucky B, TVL&T, and other entities for negligence and wantonness. The essence of Lands's claims was that Lucky B, as the owner of the truck, had a duty under statute, regulation, and common law to inspect the truck and maintain it in safe condition. By failing to inspect and maintain it, he argued, the truck fell into disrepair and triggered the sequence of events that caused his injuries. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded Lands made out a prima facie case of negligence. While questions about causation and his own possible negligence remained, the Court found Lands was entitled to have those questions answered by a jury. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's summary judgment on that claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. With respect to Lands' wantonness claims, the Court found no evidence of heightened culpability required to prove wantonness. Judgment as to that claim was affirmed. View "Lands v. Ward d/b/a Lucky B's Trucking" on Justia Law

Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa, Inc. ("Nucor"), appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich") and Onin Staffing, LLC ("Onin"), on claims asserted by Nucor arising from an alleged breach of an indemnification agreement. Nucor operated a steel-manufacturing facility in Tuscaloosa. Nucor had an internship program that offered part-time work to technical-school students, who, as part of the internship program, earned both academic credit and work experience relevant to their vocational training. In 2010, Nucor entered into a "Temporary Services Agency Agreement" ("the TSA Agreement") with Onin, a personnel-staffing agency, whereby Onin was to manage the employment of the technical-school students selected by Nucor for its internship program. Korey Ryan was a student at Shelton State Community College who applied for Nucor's internship program through Shelton State. In October 2014, Ryan was killed while working in the course of his duties at the Nucor facility. Ricky Edwards, a Nucor employee, directed Ryan to stand in a certain area in front of a water filter so that he would be clear of a moving crane. Edwards stated that he then turned his attention back to the load and began moving the crane. Ryan's right boot was struck by and became caught underneath the gearbox as the crane was moving. Ryan was dragged by the crane along the concrete floor through the narrow passageway between the crane and the warehouse wall, where he was crushed to death against a building support beam. Ryan's estate brought a wrongful-death action against Nucor; OSHA cited Nucor for a "serious" safety violation and fined it. Zurich issued a letter to Nucor and Onin in which it questioned whether the general-liability policy afforded coverage for the claims asserted in the wrongful-death action. Zurich noted that neither the indemnification provision in the TSA Agreement nor the additional-insured endorsement contained in the policy applied to in instances when the alleged "bodily injury" and/or "property damage" was caused by Nucor’s sole wrongful conduct. The Alabama Supreme Court determined the particular facts and circumstances underlying the wrongful- death action did not trigger the indemnification provision and the payment of an insurance benefit; rather, the facts and circumstances voided the indemnification provision altogether. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. View "Nucor Steel Tuscaloosa, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company et al." on Justia Law

After the Department of Labor determined that Overdevest had violated regulations governing the H-2A temporary visa program, the plant nursery challenged the regulations in district court. The Department concluded that Overdevest violated the H-2A regulations requiring employers to pay the adverse effect wage rate to any U.S. workers serving in corresponding employment. Overdevest argued that the regulations were an impermissible interpretation of the statute and were arbitrarily promulgated and enforced against Overdevest.The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department, concluding that 8 U.S.C. 1188(a)(1) is not unambiguous and the Department's definition of "corresponding employment" was reasonable. The court explained that the regulation advances the statute's purpose by ensuring that when H-2A workers are performing duties that do not implicate their qualifications, non-H-2A workers will not be placed at a disadvantage. The court rejected Overdevest's argument that the Department arbitrarily and capriciously promulgated the definition of corresponding employment. Finally, the court concluded that the Secretary's enforcement of the 2010 rule against Overdevest was not arbitrary and capricious. View "Overdevest Nurseries, LP v. Walsh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that Plaintiff's claim that his employer failed to reasonably accommodate his disability was viable and that Plaintiff did not meet the elements required for a retaliation claim but reversed the court of appeals' judgment that Plaintiff did not plead a disability-discrimination claim under Tex. Lab. Code 21.051, holding that Plaintiff's pleadings gave fair notice of a claim for discrimination under section 21.051.After Plaintiff exhausted his five months of sick leave while recovering from surgery the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) terminated him. Plaintiff sued under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). TxDOT filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his failure to accommodate claim; (2) Plaintiff could not make a prima facie case of retaliation; and (3) Plaintiff's pleadings gave fair notice of a claim for discrimination under section 21.051. View "Texas Department of Transportation v. Lara" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court against Employer on Employee's claim of retaliation based on the jury's finding that Employer discharged Employee for complaining in an email of gender discrimination, holding that there was no evidence that but for Employee's complaining of gender discrimination in her email she would not have been terminated when she was.At issue in this case was whether the standard of proof has been met when an employee claims that but for his protected conduct, his employer's prohibited retaliatory conduct would not have occurred when it did. Here, the Supreme Court explained the role that several factors play in applying the causation standard when the evidence shows that the employer took action against the employee for a legitimate reason unrelated to the employee's protected conduct. The Supreme Court ultimately rendered judgment for Employer, holding that there was no evidence to support the jury's finding that but for Employee's complaint of gender discrimination in her email Employer would not have terminated her employment when it did. View "Apache Corp. v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court concluding that Employer discriminated against Employee by firing him when he sought a reasonable accommodation for a disability, holding that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of Employee's disability discrimination claims except his claims for failure to accommodate and retaliation based on his request for a sign language interpreter.Employee, who had a preexisting hearing impairment, continued to work while rehabilitating from a workplace injury, and Employer assisted the rehabilitation by providing light-duty work. When a disagreement arose as to whether Employee was entitled to a specific work restriction, Employee was fired. A jury awarded Employee damages after finding that Employer discriminated against him when Employee sought a reasonable accommodation for a disability. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) to the extent Plaintiff's disability claims were based on the workplace injury, Plaintiff's failure to identify a job he could perform apart from the temporary light-duty work defeated his claims; and (2) Employer was entitled to a new trial on Employee's disability claims stemming from his request for a sign language interpreter. View "Rumsey v. Woodgrain Millwork, Inc." on Justia Law