Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Citizen Action Defense Fund (Fund) requesting the initial offers for collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) under the Public Records Act (PRA). The key issue is whether the deliberative process exemption under RCW 42.56.280 applies to these initial offers after the tentative CBAs have been signed by the parties and submitted to the OFM director but before they are signed by the governor or funded by the legislature.The Thurston County Superior Court found that OFM violated the PRA by withholding the records, ruling that the deliberative process exemption did not apply once the CBAs were signed by the state’s negotiation representative and the union. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the records were still exempt because the CBAs had not been presented to the governor for approval or funded by the legislature, and thus were not yet final.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the deliberative process exemption continues to apply until the legislature has funded the CBAs. The court reasoned that the collective bargaining process is not complete until the final step in the statutorily required implementation process, which is the approval of funding by the legislature. Therefore, the deliberative process exemption protects the documents related to collective bargaining until the CBAs are funded by the legislature. View "Citizen Action Def. Fund v. Off. of Fin. Mgmt." on Justia Law

Travis Bearden, a firefighter and paramedic for the City of Ocean Shores, joined the U.S. Army Reserves in 2013. He took periodic absences for military service, receiving paid military leave from the city. The dispute centers on military leave Bearden took between 2019 and 2021. During his first and second leaves from October 2019 to August 2020, Bearden was kept on the schedule and provided paid military leave for his scheduled workdays until his paid leave was exhausted in February 2020. The city then placed him on leave without pay status. For his third leave from August 2020 to May 2021, the city did not provide Bearden any paid military leave for the October 2020-September 2021 military fiscal year, arguing he had no scheduled workdays.Bearden filed a complaint in federal court in January 2021, asserting the city violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by denying him accrued leave, including paid military leave under RCW 38.40.060. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding Bearden was not entitled to paid military leave during his third leave because he was not scheduled to work on any day during the October 2020-September 2021 military fiscal year. Bearden appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Washington’s paid military leave statute.The Washington Supreme Court held that public employees are entitled to 21 days of paid military leave for required military service during each military fiscal year, regardless of whether they are scheduled to work by the employer due to the length of their military service absence. The court emphasized that the statute’s plain language and purpose support this entitlement, and the scheduling of workdays does not limit the annual entitlement to paid military leave. View "Bearden v. City of Ocean Shores" on Justia Law

In the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Lab required employees to be vaccinated against the disease. Sally Tarquinio, who suffers from “Lyme-induced immune dysregulation,” requested a medical exemption, fearing adverse effects from the vaccine. The lab found her condition unclear and requested to speak with her doctors, but Tarquinio refused. Consequently, the lab denied her exemption request and terminated her employment for non-compliance. Tarquinio sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the lab.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed the case and found that Tarquinio had not provided sufficient evidence to support her need for an exemption. The court noted that the lab had made good faith efforts to understand her condition and accommodate her, but Tarquinio’s refusal to allow communication with her doctors prevented the lab from obtaining necessary information. The court concluded that without this information, the lab could not be held liable for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Tarquinio’s failure to engage in the interactive process by not providing adequate medical documentation or allowing the lab to speak with her doctors meant that the lab was not on proper notice of her need for accommodation. The court emphasized that the interactive process is essential for determining reasonable accommodations and that an employer cannot be held liable if the employee obstructs this process. Thus, the lab’s actions were deemed appropriate, and the summary judgment in favor of the lab was affirmed. View "Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab" on Justia Law

Dayana Garcia worked as a server at Gloria’s Restaurant for several months. After her employment ended, she filed a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) suit against the restaurant's management entities and co-founder, alleging failure to pay minimum wage. The defendants initially participated in litigation, including answering the lawsuit, engaging in discovery, and mediating. They also filed a joint status report stating they had no intent to arbitrate. Five months after the lawsuit was filed, the defendants moved to compel arbitration.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that the defendants had waived their right to arbitrate by substantially invoking the judicial process. The defendants appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the defendants had engaged in several litigative actions, including filing an answer without mentioning arbitration, participating in discovery, and mediating the dispute. The court also highlighted the defendants' explicit statement in the joint status report that they were not considering arbitration. The court concluded that these actions constituted a substantial invocation of the judicial process, thereby waiving the right to arbitrate. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration. View "Garcia v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

Joanne Allison, a former registered nurse, filed a class action lawsuit against her former employer, Dignity Health, alleging unpaid work, meal period, and rest break violations. She sought class certification for registered nurses at three Dignity hospitals since June 1, 2014. Allison's expert claimed that time records showed over 70% of shifts had noncompliant meal periods. She also argued that work-issued communication devices interrupted rest breaks, violating labor laws.The trial court initially granted partial class certification, finding common questions suitable for class treatment, including the legality of Dignity's premium request requirement and the impact of communication devices on breaks. However, Dignity later moved to decertify the class, citing post-certification discovery that revealed significant variations in nurses' experiences and practices, undermining the manageability of class-wide adjudication.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering new evidence from post-certification depositions, which showed varied reasons for noncompliant meal periods, such as personal preferences and mistakes. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to disregard the Steiner survey due to methodological flaws and potential biases, which rendered it unreliable for proving class-wide liability.The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decertification order, agreeing that individualized inquiries predominated over common questions, making class treatment unmanageable. The court also noted that the evidence did not support a uniform practice of requiring nurses to carry work phones during breaks, further complicating the rest break claims. Thus, the order decertifying the class was affirmed. View "Allison v. Dignity Health" on Justia Law

Santoasha Harris endured five years of sexual harassment at her job with the City of Milwaukee. When she reported the harassment in 2017, the City separated her from the harasser, conducted an investigation, compelled the harasser’s resignation, and restored Harris to her position within a month. Harris sued the City, alleging it knew about the harassment for years, failed to act, and retaliated against her for reporting it. Due to Harris’s bankruptcy filing, her estate was substituted as the plaintiff.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the City. The court concluded that Harris’s Estate had not shown the City unreasonably failed to prevent the harassment or that she suffered a tangible employment action as a consequence of reporting it. The court found no evidence supporting the Title VII and Section 1983 claims against the City.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court agreed that the evidence did not support the claims of quid pro quo harassment, hostile work environment, or retaliation under Title VII. The court found that Harris did not suffer a tangible employment action and that the City acted promptly and reasonably once the harassment was reported. Additionally, the court found no basis for employer liability under Section 1983, as there was no evidence of intentional discrimination by the City. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find for the Estate on its claims against the City. View "Bankruptcy Estate of Harris v City of Milwaukee" on Justia Law

Darren Markley sued his employer, US Bank, in federal court, alleging age discrimination under federal law and wrongful termination under Colorado state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of US Bank on the federal claim and dismissed the state law claim without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Markley did not appeal the dismissal of the state law claim or request the district court to reconsider it under diversity jurisdiction, despite knowing that diversity jurisdiction existed.Markley then filed his state law claim in the Denver District Court. US Bank removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss the claim, arguing claim preclusion. The district court granted the motion, holding that Markley could have pursued his state law claim in the original federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that his failure to do so precluded him from bringing the claim in a new case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that claim preclusion applied because Markley could have litigated his state law claim in the prior federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a final judgment on the merits in the earlier action, which included the resolution of the federal claim, precluded Markley from bringing the state law claim in a new lawsuit. The court also found that the district court did not violate the party presentation principle by addressing the issue of diversity jurisdiction, as it was within the court's power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law. View "Markley v. U.S. Bank National Association" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a nurse, the plaintiff, and her former employer, the defendant hospital. The plaintiff alleged that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints about safety issues. She brought five claims for relief, but only three statutory claims went to the jury: whistle-blower retaliation, unlawful retaliation, and unlawful employment practice. The jury found in favor of the defendant on the first two claims and in favor of the plaintiff on the third claim. The trial court entered a general judgment reflecting these verdicts.The defendant appealed the general judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in giving a "cat's paw" jury instruction, which allowed the jury to impute the bias of the plaintiff's coworkers to the defendant. The Court of Appeals agreed that the instruction was improper and reversed and remanded for a new trial. The trial court then vacated the general judgment and ordered a retrial of all three claims, including those on which the defendant had prevailed. The defendant appealed this order, but the Appellate Commissioner dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case to determine whether the trial court's order was appealable under ORS 19.205(3). The court concluded that, after the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the general judgment, there was no longer a general judgment in place. Therefore, the trial court's order determining the scope of the retrial was not an order made "after a general judgment" and was not immediately appealable under ORS 19.205(3). The orders of the Court of Appeals were affirmed. View "Crosbie v. Asante" on Justia Law

Connie Grabowski, a second-grade teacher for the South Bend Community School Corporation, was involved in an incident where a student, S.J., caused her to trip and fall. Grabowski filled out a worker’s compensation accident report form, naming S.J., who was the grandson of a school board member. Following this, the school conducted an investigation into Grabowski’s conduct, placed her on administrative leave, and offered her a last-chance agreement, which she declined, leading to her resignation.Grabowski filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination, alleging that the school retaliated against her for indicating an intent to file a worker’s compensation claim. The trial court denied the school’s motion for summary judgment, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury found in favor of Grabowski, awarding her $600,000 in damages. The school appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying its motions for judgment on the evidence.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that there was no evidence that the school discharged Grabowski solely to avoid workers’ compensation liability. The court emphasized that Grabowski’s own theory of the case was that the school’s actions were motivated by the desire to protect the board member’s grandson, not solely to avoid workers’ compensation liability. Therefore, the jury’s verdict could not stand, and the case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the school corporation. View "South Bend Community School Corporation v. Grabowski" on Justia Law

Two corrections officers, Nicole McDaniel and Matthew Davis, filed a class-action lawsuit against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC), seeking compensation for time spent in correctional facilities before and after their shifts. They argued that these pre- and post-shift activities, such as passing through security and obtaining equipment, are integral to their principal activities and should be compensable under Wisconsin regulations. The DOC employs approximately 5,000 corrections officers across 37 prisons, all of whom are required to complete these activities, though the specifics and duration may vary.The Milwaukee County Circuit Court certified the class, finding that the plaintiffs made a plausible argument for compensation and met the statutory requirements for class certification, including commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority. However, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the decision, arguing that the class would lose on the merits because the pre- and post-shift activities were not compensable, thus failing the commonality and typicality requirements.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and clarified that a court should not consider the merits of the underlying claim when assessing class-certification requirements. The court determined that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in certifying the class. The Supreme Court held that the common question of whether the pre- and post-shift activities are compensable predominates over individual issues and that a class action is a superior method for resolving the controversy. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "McDaniel v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law