Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Employee Paul Westcott was terminated by his employer, Mack Molding Co., Inc., for lying about secretly recording conversations at work. Westcott sued the employer, claiming that his recording activities were protected under Vermont’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) and Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA), and also alleged breach of contract and promissory estoppel.The Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division, granted summary judgment to the employer. The court concluded that Westcott’s recording activities were not protected under FEPA or WCA. It also found that Westcott could not sustain his breach-of-contract claim because the employee handbook clearly stated that employment was at-will and could be terminated for any reason. Additionally, the court held that Westcott’s promissory estoppel claim failed because his termination was not connected to any promise made by the employer regarding his return to work after short-term disability leave.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that Westcott’s covert recording of workplace conversations did not constitute protected activity under FEPA or WCA. The court also agreed that the employee handbook did not create a binding contract that altered Westcott’s at-will employment status. Furthermore, the court found no basis for the promissory estoppel claim, as there was no specific promise breached by the employer related to Westcott’s termination.In summary, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer, concluding that Westcott’s recording activities were not protected, his employment was at-will, and there was no breach of a specific promise that could support a promissory estoppel claim. View "Westcott v. Mack Molding, Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Annalycia Jenkins, a former employee of Dermatology Management, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit against her employer after resigning. She alleged unfair competition, and the employer sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Jenkins signed on her first day of work. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the agreement both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.The San Luis Obispo County Superior Court found the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable due to its lack of mutuality, shortened statute of limitations, unreasonable discovery restrictions, and requirement for the parties to equally share the arbitrator’s fees and costs. Procedurally, the court noted the agreement was a contract of adhesion, pre-signed by the employer months before Jenkins was hired, and presented to her on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without the presence of the Chief People Officer.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable due to the inequality of bargaining power and the pre-signed nature of the agreement. It also upheld the finding of substantive unconscionability, noting the lack of mutuality, the unreasonable one-year statute of limitations, the unfair cost-sharing provision, and the restrictive discovery terms. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the unconscionable provisions, as doing so would condone an illegal scheme and incentivize employers to draft one-sided agreements. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Jenkins v. Dermatology Management, LLC" on Justia Law

The Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association and the Las Vegas Peace Officers Association negotiated additional holidays with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the City of Las Vegas. These holidays included Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, and Juneteenth. The Nevada Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) refused to collect increased retirement contributions on the holiday pay for these additional holidays, arguing that they were not included in Nevada's statutory list of holidays.The Associations filed a declaratory relief action in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, seeking to compel PERS to collect the appropriate contributions. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Associations, directing PERS to collect the contributions for the additional holiday pay.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that PERS is required to collect additional retirement contributions for the increased wages earned on the negotiated holidays. The court concluded that the plain text of NRS 288.150(2)(d) supports the Associations' authority to negotiate holidays and that PERS must comply with these agreements. The court also determined that Juneteenth became a legal holiday in Nevada in 2021 following a presidential declaration and that PERS must collect contributions for this holiday retroactively to 2022. Additionally, the court found that the Associations have the statutory power to negotiate holiday pay for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, and PERS is obligated to collect contributions for these holidays as well.The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, requiring PERS to collect the appropriate employer contributions for the additional holiday pay as negotiated by the Associations. View "PUB. EMPLOYEES' RET. SYS. OF NEV. VS. LAS VEGAS MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS ASS'N" on Justia Law

East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc. (East Penn) did not fully compensate its workers for the time spent changing into uniforms and showering after shifts, which was required due to the hazardous nature of their work involving lead-acid batteries. The company provided a grace period for these activities but did not record the actual time spent. The U.S. Department of Labor sued East Penn under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failing to pay employees for all time spent on these activities.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the government, determining that changing and showering were integral and indispensable to the workers' principal activities. The jury subsequently awarded $22.25 million in back pay to 11,780 hourly uniformed workers. The District Court, however, declined to award liquidated damages. East Penn appealed the decision, and the government cross-appealed the denial of liquidated damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's rulings. The Third Circuit held that employers bear the burden of proving that any unpaid time is de minimis (trivial). The court also held that employers must pay for the actual time employees spend on work-related activities, not just a reasonable amount of time. The court found that the District Court's jury instructions and the admission of the government's expert testimony were proper. Additionally, the Third Circuit upheld the District Court's decision to deny liquidated damages, concluding that East Penn had acted in good faith based on legal advice, even though that advice was ultimately incorrect.In summary, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, requiring East Penn to compensate employees for the actual time spent on changing and showering, and placing the burden of proving de minimis time on the employer. View "Secretary United States Department of Labor v. East Penn Manufacturing Inc" on Justia Law

Krista Dittus sued her former employer, Black Hills Care and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, and the company that took over its operations, RC North SD Skilled Nursing Facility, LLC d/b/a Avantara North, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Avantara denied the allegations, asserting it had no employment relationship with Dittus at the time of her termination. Black Hills Care did not respond or appear in the case.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of Avantara after striking Dittus's untimely response to the motion for summary judgment. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and ruled that Avantara was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Written orders were entered, and Avantara's counsel served notice of entry of the orders on Dittus's counsel via the court's electronic filing system on September 15, 2023. Dittus's counsel filed a notice of appeal and a civil case docketing statement through the same system on October 13, 2023, but only the docketing statement was served on Avantara's counsel.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and determined that it lacked appellate jurisdiction due to Dittus's failure to serve the notice of appeal on Avantara's counsel as required by SDCL 15-26A-4. The court emphasized that both timely filing and service of the notice of appeal are mandatory jurisdictional requirements. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "Dittus v. Black Hills Care & Rehab and Avantara" on Justia Law

Joseph Lee, a Louisiana resident, sought workers’ compensation benefits for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident during nonworking hours while employed at a construction project in Maysville, Kentucky. Lee was hired by W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co. (Yates) and temporarily moved to a campground in Ohio near the job site. He was paid a daily per diem but not reimbursed for travel or housing expenses. The accident occurred when Lee was riding his motorcycle to meet a friend for dinner before his night shift.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Lee’s injuries did not occur within the course and scope of his employment, applying the “coming-and-going” rule. The Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Lee appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the Board’s decision by a 2-1 vote, finding that Lee’s injuries fell under the “traveling-employee” exception to the “coming-and-going” rule, as his presence in Kentucky was for the benefit of Yates.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, affirming the Board’s determination. The Court held that Lee was not a “traveling employee” at the time of the accident, as his job did not require travel once he relocated to the job site. The Court also found that Lee’s motorcycle ride to a restaurant was not in furtherance of his employer’s business interests and did not fall under the “service to the employer” exception. Therefore, Lee’s injuries were not compensable under workers’ compensation. View "W.G. YATES & SONS CONSTRUCTION CO. V. HARVEY" on Justia Law

Terry Hall worked for BPM Lumber, LLC, and was terminated in 2015 after failing a drug test. In 2018, Hall filed a claim for permanent occupational disability benefits, alleging various health issues due to exposure to a mixture of hydraulic fluid and diesel fuel at work. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed Hall's claim, finding that the medical evidence did not support the work-relatedness of his conditions.Hall appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which affirmed the ALJ's decision in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further explanation regarding the rejection of the University Evaluator’s report on Hall’s respiratory impairment. The ALJ provided additional findings on remand, again dismissing Hall's claims. Hall appealed to the Board, which affirmed the ALJ's decision. Hall then sought review from the Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals held that the Board’s initial July 22, 2022, Order was final and appealable, precluding Hall from raising certain issues again. The court affirmed the Board’s decision on the merits of the remaining issues.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the Board’s July 22, 2022, Order was final and appealable, and Hall’s failure to appeal that order immediately precluded him from raising those issues in a subsequent appeal. The court also noted that the workers’ compensation process does not require exhaustion of all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. View "HALL V. BPM LUMBER, LLC" on Justia Law

LKQ Corporation, a Delaware corporation in the auto salvage and recycled parts business, designated certain employees as "Key Persons" eligible for Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) through RSU Agreements. These agreements included non-competition clauses and provisions for forfeiture of RSUs and any stock issued if the employee competed with LKQ within nine months post-departure. Robert Rutledge, a plant manager at LKQ, signed these agreements and received stock under them. In April 2021, Rutledge resigned and joined a competitor shortly after.LKQ sued Rutledge in Illinois federal court for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking to enjoin him from working for a competitor and to recover proceeds from the sale of LKQ stock. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim and granted summary judgment for Rutledge on the contract claims, holding that the non-competition provisions were unreasonable restraints of trade under Illinois law and unenforceable under Delaware law, based on the Court of Chancery's decision in Ainslie v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim and the summary judgment ruling on the Restrictive Covenant Agreements. However, it was uncertain about the enforceability of the RSU Agreements' forfeiture-for-competition provisions under Delaware law, especially after the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's decision in Cantor Fitzgerald. The Seventh Circuit certified two questions to the Delaware Supreme Court regarding the applicability of Cantor Fitzgerald outside the limited partnership context.The Delaware Supreme Court held that the principles from Cantor Fitzgerald, which endorse the employee choice doctrine and prioritize freedom of contract, apply beyond the limited partnership context, including to RSU agreements. The court emphasized that forfeiture-for-competition provisions do not restrict competition or an employee's ability to work and should be treated as enforceable terms subject to ordinary breach of contract defenses. View "LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit against Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc. by several plaintiffs who allege that the company required them to perform unpaid off-the-clock work and made unauthorized edits to their time records. The plaintiffs, who worked as shift managers, claim that Bojangles violated its own policies and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not compensating them for all hours worked, including overtime.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina conditionally certified a collective action for the FLSA claims and later certified class actions for state wage-and-hour law claims in North Carolina and South Carolina. The district court found that the proposed classes met the requirements for numerosity, commonality, and predominance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court relied on the fact that most class members worked opening shifts and were subject to Bojangles’ Opening Checklist, which allegedly required pre-shift work. The court defined the classes broadly to include all shift managers who worked at Bojangles in North Carolina or South Carolina within three years of the complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s certification order. The appellate court found that the district court abused its discretion by employing an overly general approach in identifying the policies that allegedly unified the class members’ claims and by creating overly broad class definitions. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court failed to provide specific evidence of a common policy that mandated off-the-clock work and time-record edits for all class members. The court vacated the certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to refine the class definitions and ensure that common questions predominate over individualized issues. View "Stafford v. Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc." on Justia Law

VTCU Corp., a manufacturer of electrical transformers, contested the results of a mail ballot representation election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, won the election by 21 votes. VTCU alleged misconduct by the NLRB’s Region 27 Office and the Union, claiming insufficient voting time, failure to provide ballots to eligible voters, and counting of void ballots. VTCU also accused Union agents of threatening and intimidating employees. VTCU requested the election be overturned or an evidentiary hearing be held.The Regional Director found no merit in VTCU’s claims, overruled the objections without a hearing, and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative. The Director determined many of VTCU’s objections were untimely, unsupported, or refuted by an administrative investigation. The Director concluded the Regional Office’s conduct was consistent with the Board’s Casehandling Manual, the parties’ Stipulated Election Agreement, and Board precedent.After the Board denied VTCU’s request for review, VTCU refused to bargain with the Union. The Board’s General Counsel issued a complaint alleging VTCU’s refusal to bargain violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board concluded VTCU committed unfair labor practices and ordered it to recognize and bargain with the Union. VTCU petitioned for review, arguing the Board erred in rejecting its objections and denying requests for an extension of time and a post-election hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found no merit in VTCU’s claims. The court held the Board’s decision was consistent with applicable law and supported by established precedent. The court also noted it lacked jurisdiction to consider several of VTCU’s claims due to failure to raise them with the Board. Consequently, the court denied VTCU’s petition for review and granted the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order. View "VTCU Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law