Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

At issue before the Mississippi Supreme Court in this case was whether the Civil Service Commission for the City of Jackson (Commission) sufficiently and clearly certified its findings when it affirmed the Jackson Police Department’s termination of Officer Justin Roberts. The Supreme Court found that because the Commission failed to set forth with sufficient clarity and specificity its reasons for affirming Roberts’s termination, the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court were reversed, and the matter remanded to the Commission to comply with the Supreme Court's directive to certify in writing and to set forth with sufficient clarity and specificity its factual findings. View "Roberts v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court accepted a question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and answered that Arizona has not consented to damages liability for a state agency's violation of the minimum wage or overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 206-207.Plaintiff brought this putative claims action complaint asserting that the State violated the FLSA by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation to state-employed in-home caretakers who, like herself, provide around the clock care to beneficiaries of the Arizona Long-Term Care System. The State removed the case to federal district court. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss, thus rejecting Plaintiff's contentions that the State waived its sovereign immunity by removing the case to the federal court and that the State waived its sovereign immunity as a matter of law. The Ninth Circuit then certified its question to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that the legislature has neither expressly consented nor implied its consent to federal damages liability, and therefore, Arizona has not consented to damages liability for a state agency's violation of the FLSA's minimum wage or overtime provisions. View "Redgrave v. Ducey" on Justia Law

Romero, a truck driver employed by Watkins, an interstate trucking business, made deliveries only to retail stores in California. To complete paperwork and training, Romero periodically logged in to an online portal that required a unique employee identification number and password. Romero’s unique user account completed a set of “Associate Acknowledgements,” through which he clicked “I Agree,” signifying that he read and agreed to the Arbitration Policy, a stand-alone agreement that purports to waive any right to bring or participate in a class action; it states that the agreement is “governed by the Federal Arbitration Act,” and purports to waive "any provision of the FAA which would otherwise exclude [the agreement] from its coverage.” However, if "this [agreement] and/or its Waiver Provisions are not subject to and governed by the FAA, then the laws of the State of Nevada . . . will be the applicable state law.” The Arbitration Policy was not a condition of employment. Romero did not opt-out. In August 2019, Watkins announced it would cease operations. Romero and other employees were laid off.Romero filed a putative class action under the California and federal WARN Acts, 29 U.S.C. 2101, which require advance notice to employees before being laid off. The district court granted a motion to compel arbitration. The NInth Circuit affirmed, while noting that the Federal FAA exemption of employment contracts for transportation workers applies and cannot be waived by private contract. View "Romero v. Watkins & Shepard Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case involving the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal concluding that sections 631 and 683 of the Unemployment Insurance Code exclude from coverage a provider who is the recipient's minor child, parent, or spouse under the state's unemployment insurance program, holding that the court of appeal did not err.The IHSS program authorized certain Californias, who were disabled or elderly, to receive in-home services from third parties or family members paid for with public funds. Under one program option, service recipients hire their own providers and the providers are paid either by a public entity or by the recipients with funds they have received from a public entity. At issue was whether such a provider qualified for unemployment benefits. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding that provider who is the recipient's minor child, parent, or spouse is not covered by the state's unemployment insurance program. View "Skidgel v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Department of Labor and Regulation determining that a copy of a letter to Appellant's insurer seeking a review of his workers' compensation benefits did not constitute a petition for a hearing, holding that the Department and the circuit court did not err.Appellant injured his left and right shoulder at work. Western National Insurance (Insurer), the workers' compensation for Appellant's employers, paid workers' compensation benefits. Five years later, Appellant sent a letter to Insurer seeking a review of his workers' compensation benefits and sent a copy of this letter to the Department requesting that the Department determine that the letter constituted a petition for hearing. The Department concluded that the letter was not a petition for hearing because it lacked the information required by ARSD 47:03:01:02. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that Appellant's letter did not satisfy ARSD 47:03:01:02. View "May v. Spearfish Pellett Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against CJS Solutions, a Florida entity doing business as The HCI Group, in the District of Minnesota. Plaintiffs moved to certify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The putative class of plaintiffs was composed of all HCI employees hired on a per-project basis who were not paid wages for out-of-town travel to and from remote project locations. After the district court conditionally certified a collective action limited to claims arising out of travel to and from Minnesota, it granted summary judgment for HCI on the ground that plaintiffs were not employees when traveling.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in finding defendant had not waived its jurisdictional defense to plaintiffs' claims for certification of collective actions covering all of defendant's employees for all of their travel time anywhere in the United States; the district court properly excluded all claims with no connection with the forum state of Minnesota; and, in regard to the out-of-town travel claims, the district court did not err in finding that two plaintiffs were not employees when traveling and that defendant had no obligation to pay for their time. View "Vallone v. CJS Solutions Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus and, alternatively, a writ of procedendo ordering Respondents to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his appeal of the mayor's appointment of another detective sergeant to the position of lieutenant with the City of Youngstown Police Department, holding that Relator was not entitled to the writs.Relator, a detective sergeant with the Youngstown Police Department, brought this action against Respondents, the Youngstown Civil Service Commission and its president, Vice President, and secretary, challenging the decision of the City's mayor to appoint to the position of lieutenant the examinee who ranked first on the eligibility list. The Supreme Court denied the writs, holding (1) Relator's request for a writ of mandamus ordering the Commission to issue a decision determining his appeal was moot; (2) this Court declines to address Relator's constitutional argument; and (3) Relator's procedendo claim failed. View "State ex rel. Cox v. Youngstown Civil Service Commission" on Justia Law

Anthem provides health insurance and hires nurses to review insurance claims. The company pays those nurses a salary but does not pay them overtime. Canaday, an Anthem nurse who lives in Tennessee, filed a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 206. claiming that the company misclassified her and others as exempt from the Act’s overtime pay provisions. A number of Anthem nurses in other states opted into the collective action.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the out-of-state plaintiffs on personal jurisdiction grounds. In an FLSA collective action, as in the mass action under California law, each opt-in plaintiff becomes a real party in interest, who must meet her burden for obtaining relief and satisfy the other requirements of party status. Anthem is based in Indiana, not Tennessee. General jurisdiction is not an option for out-of-state claims. Specific jurisdiction requires a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue. The out-of-state plaintiffs have not brought claims arising out of or relating to Anthem’s conduct in Tennessee. View "Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants Will Taylor, Ken Gorman and Nicholas Wayman, individuals who formerly conducted bail fugitive recovery, appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-respondent Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc (FCS), a surety admitted to write bail in California. Plaintiffs sued FCS and other bail-agent entities and individuals for, among other things, fraud, various Labor Code violations, as well as statutory damages under the Labor Code, conversion, unfair competition, discrimination and wrongful termination, alleging in part that FCS was a co-employer with the right to control the manner in which they performed their assignments. FCS moved for summary judgment on grounds plaintiffs were not FCS employees as a matter of law, disposing of their claims based on the Labor Code as well as for fraud and conversion, which related to misrepresentations of their employment status or withholding final paychecks. The trial court granted the motion, in part ruling FCS did not employ plaintiffs for purposes of causes of action based on the Labor Code or dependent on an employment relationship; plaintiffs’ claims for fraud and conversion were barred by the “new right-exclusive remedy doctrine”; and plaintiffs could not make out a claim for unfair competition on their allegations that FCS violated the law. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by its ruling. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Taylor v. Financial Casualty & Surety" on Justia Law

During Castilleja's 15 years as Bexar County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) community service officer, he had multiple reprimands and termination warnings. After Castilleja was transferred in 2014, his new manager suspected Castilleja was violating overtime rules. An investigation by Assistant Chief Kelly confirmed Castilleja was routinely taking unapproved overtime and using his work computer to send union-related emails. Castilleja only received counseling and was put on a “performance improvement plan.” Castilleja’s 2015 evaluation rated him “satisfactory” overall but gave him the lowest rating in multiple categories. In 2016, Castilleja was sworn in as president of the Bexar County Probation Officers Association (BCPOA), having served in the union since 2007. Castilleja switched units and other issues came to light, resulting in an audit of Castilleja’s former cases. Brady recommended termination, citing Castilleja’s disregard of “the basic ten[e]ts of case management,” multiple policy violations, plus two instances of conducting union business while at work, and one use of work email to send union-related emails. Meanwhile, the BCPOA issued a no-confidence petition calling for Anderson’s removal. Days later, Anderson heard Castilleja’s appeal. Anderson fired Castilleja.Castilleja and the Union sued Anderson and Brady in their individual and official capacities, claiming that Castilleja was fired in retaliation for union-related speech and association in violation of the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims. The evidence established valid reasons for firing Castilleja. View "United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union v. Anderson" on Justia Law