Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Betty Grooms, a Missouri clerk of court, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Alice Bell and Judge Steven Privette, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights through discrimination and retaliation, and violations of her substantive due process rights. Grooms, a Republican, had defeated Bell, a Democrat, in an election for Circuit Clerk. Bell, who retained her job under Grooms, later married Privette, a Republican judge. Tensions arose when Bell and Privette were uncooperative with Grooms, leading to Bell's resignation and announcement to run for Circuit Clerk. Privette ordered Grooms to prepare detailed spreadsheets, which he repeatedly rejected, and initiated a contempt prosecution against her, which was eventually dismissed by the Missouri Supreme Court.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissed Grooms's claims, ruling that the defendants did not violate her clearly established First Amendment rights and did not violate her substantive due process rights. The court found that the defendants' actions did not constitute adverse employment actions under clearly established law and that Grooms did not suffer a serious deprivation of a protected interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Bell and Privette were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim, as Grooms failed to show that their actions constituted adverse employment actions under clearly established law. Additionally, the court found that Grooms's substantive due process claim was inadequate, as she did not demonstrate a serious deprivation of a protected interest. The court concluded that the defendants' conduct did not shock the conscience and did not violate Grooms's substantive due process rights. View "Grooms v. Privette" on Justia Law

Kristin Casey, a former employee of D.R. Horton, Inc., filed a lawsuit against the company and one of its employees, Kris Hansen, alleging sexual harassment and other claims. D.R. Horton moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement that included an arbitration clause governed by California law. Casey opposed the motion, citing the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which allows plaintiffs to invalidate arbitration agreements in cases involving sexual harassment. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the EFAA was inapplicable due to the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially reviewed the case and granted the motion to compel arbitration, accepting Hansen's joinder. The court concluded that the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement meant that California law, not the EFAA, applied. Casey then filed a petition for a writ of mandate to challenge this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the EFAA preempts state law attempts to compel arbitration in cases related to sexual harassment disputes. The court determined that the EFAA applies to the parties' transaction because it sufficiently involved interstate commerce. The court also concluded that the EFAA's rule of unenforceability of arbitration agreements in sexual harassment cases preempts the state law and that parties cannot contract around the EFAA through a choice-of-law provision. Consequently, the court granted Casey's petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order compelling arbitration and to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Casey v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Kristie Williams, a former employee of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for her daughter, who was allegedly sexually assaulted while serving in the Marine Corps. The University approved her leave, but Williams claimed she continued to receive work-related communications and criticism from her supervisors during her leave. This led to her resignation, and she subsequently sued the University, alleging interference with her FMLA rights and retaliation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied the University’s motion to dismiss, which argued that the suit was barred by state sovereign immunity. The court reasoned that Williams might have been seeking family-care leave under the FMLA, for which the Supreme Court had previously held that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Williams’s suit could proceed regardless of whether she sought family-care leave, active-duty leave, or servicemember-family leave. For family-care leave, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hibbs confirmed that Congress had abrogated state sovereign immunity. For active-duty and servicemember-family leave, the court concluded that Alabama waived its sovereign immunity under the plan-of-the-Convention doctrine when it joined the Union, as these provisions were enacted pursuant to Congress’s constitutional authority to raise and support the military. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the University’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama" on Justia Law

Republic Airways Inc. and Hyannis Air Service, Inc. entered into individual employment agreements with pilot candidates, offering incentives in exchange for employment commitments. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its local unions argued that these agreements violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because they were not bargained for and fell outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between the parties.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the unions' complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, determining that the dispute was "minor" under the RLA and thus subject to arbitration. The court found that the resolution of the dispute required interpretation of the CBAs, which mandated arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the employment agreements were arguably justified by the broad discretionary language in the CBAs, which allowed the carriers to offer incentives and determine their terms. The court emphasized the RLA's strong preference for arbitration and concluded that the carriers' arguments were not frivolous or insubstantial. Therefore, the dispute was classified as minor and subject to arbitration, not federal court jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the unions' state law claim. View "International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Republic Airways Inc." on Justia Law

Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. (Nabors) performed oil well plug and abandonment work for the City of Long Beach (the City) between 2012 and 2014. The City had contracted with Tidelands Oil Production Company (Tidelands) for services on the Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project, and Tidelands subcontracted the work to Nabors. The City and Tidelands had concluded that the work was not subject to prevailing wage laws, and Nabors was not informed otherwise during the bid process. After completing the work, Nabors faced a class action from its employees for unpaid prevailing wages, which led to arbitration awards and federal court judgments against Nabors.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained demurrers by the City and Tidelands, dismissing Nabors’s claims for indemnity under Labor Code sections 1781 and 1784. The court ruled that section 1784 could not be applied retroactively to Tidelands and that the arbitration awards confirmed by the federal court did not qualify as court decisions under section 1781.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the section 1784 claim against Tidelands, agreeing that the statute could not be applied retroactively. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the section 1781 claim against the City, holding that the federal court’s confirmation of arbitration awards did qualify as court decisions classifying the work as public work. The case was remanded with instructions to enter a new order overruling the City’s demurrer to the section 1781 cause of action. Nabors was awarded costs on appeal against the City, while Tidelands was awarded costs on appeal against Nabors. View "Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

Prestige Home Care Agency, operated by Nursing Home Care Management Inc., did not compensate its employees for travel time between clients' homes. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) sued Prestige for this and other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The District Court found Prestige's actions to be willful violations of the FLSA and granted summary judgment in favor of the DOL. Prestige appealed the summary judgment, the exclusion of its expert witness, and the denial of its motion for sanctions against the DOL.The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania excluded Prestige’s expert witness, denied Prestige’s motion for sanctions, and granted summary judgment for the DOL on all claims. The court found that Prestige willfully violated the FLSA by not compensating for travel time, failing to pay for short breaks, improperly compensating overtime, and not keeping accurate records.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that travel time between job sites during the workday is compensable under the FLSA. It affirmed the District Court’s finding that Prestige violated the FLSA’s recordkeeping requirements and acted willfully in its violations, extending the statute of limitations to three years. The court also upheld the District Court’s calculation of back wages and liquidated damages, finding the DOL’s estimates sufficient given Prestige’s inadequate records.The Third Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s exclusion of Prestige’s expert witness, who made several legal errors in his report. The court also upheld the denial of sanctions against the DOL, as the documents in question were already in Prestige’s possession and had little impact on the case. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment in all respects. View "Secretary United States Department of Labor v. Nursing Home Care Management Inc." on Justia Law

A financial advisor, employed by Principal Securities, Inc., was terminated for failing to obtain a second client consent when rebalancing accounts using a new trading system. The advisor argued that the termination report filed by Principal with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) was misleading and initiated arbitration to seek changes to the report. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the advisor, recommending changes to the termination report to reflect that the advisor's failure was due to a lack of training and that the advisor was encouraged not to resign during the investigation.The Iowa District Court for Polk County vacated the arbitration award, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. The advisor appealed, and the case was transferred to the Iowa Court of Appeals. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, with the majority agreeing that the information provided by Principal was not defamatory or misleading. The dissenting judge believed that substantial evidence supported the arbitration award.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and applied a highly deferential standard of review. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the arbitrator's determination that the termination report was misleading and that the recommended changes were justified. The court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court's judgment, and remanded the case with instructions to confirm the arbitration award. View "Principal Securities, Inc. v. Gelbman" on Justia Law

Armando Guevara worked as a domestic service employee for Robert and Maria Zamora for over a decade, performing various tasks such as cleaning, car maintenance, and grocery shopping. Occasionally, he also provided services for the Zamoras' businesses, Lafise Corporation and Latin American Financial Services, Inc. (LAFS). Guevara was paid $1,365.88 biweekly, but there was no written employment agreement, and the parties disagreed on whether this amount represented a salary or an hourly wage. The Zamoras claimed they paid him an hourly rate with overtime, while Guevara asserted he was paid a salary without proper overtime compensation.Guevara filed a putative class action against the Zamoras, Lafise, and LAFS for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Guevara was not covered by the FLSA through either "enterprise coverage" or "individual coverage." The court also found that Guevara was fully compensated for all his overtime work hours based on the Zamoras' testimony and calculations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. The appellate court determined that there was a genuine dispute regarding Guevara's regular hourly rate and, therefore, his overtime rate. The court noted that the Zamoras did not maintain accurate records, and the evidence presented created a genuine issue of fact that should be determined by a jury. The appellate court also vacated the district court's ruling on whether Lafise was a joint employer, as the lower court failed to provide sufficient reasoning and did not address the relevant factors. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Guevara v. Lafise Corp." on Justia Law

A national news reporter employed by a prominent newspaper sued her employer and six of its editors in Superior Court, alleging violations of the D.C. Human Rights Act and the common law tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. She claimed that the defendants discriminated against her based on her status as a sexual assault victim and her gender, took adverse employment actions against her, subjected her to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her for protesting their discriminatory actions.The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and filed a special motion to dismiss under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act, arguing that the claims arose from acts in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest. The Superior Court denied the special motion to dismiss, finding that the claims did not arise from speech protected by the Anti-SLAPP Act, but granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege unlawful discrimination or retaliation.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the denial of the special motion to dismiss, agreeing that the Anti-SLAPP Act did not apply. The court reversed the dismissal of the counts alleging adverse action discrimination, finding that the complaint plausibly alleged that the defendants took certain adverse employment actions against the reporter in violation of the Human Rights Act. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the hostile work environment and retaliation claims, concluding that the allegations did not meet the necessary legal standards. The court also noted that it was premature to decide whether the defendants' actions were protected by the First Amendment, leaving that issue open for further proceedings. View "Sonmez v. WP Company, LLC" on Justia Law

A registered nurse, Alexandra Melino, sued her former employer, Boston Medical Center (BMC), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Massachusetts General Laws by denying her request for a religious exemption from BMC's COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Melino's primary duties involved direct patient care in critical units. During the pandemic, BMC converted several units to COVID-19 units and faced significant staffing challenges due to the virus. BMC implemented a vaccination policy based on CDC recommendations to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission among staff and patients.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to BMC, holding that Melino's requested exemption would impose undue hardship on the hospital. The court found that Melino could not work remotely, could not work in-person unvaccinated without risking patient safety, and that any feasible accommodation would impose substantial costs on BMC. Melino's motion to strike portions of an affidavit submitted by BMC was also denied due to her failure to comply with local procedural rules.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that BMC had demonstrated undue hardship by showing that allowing Melino to work unvaccinated would increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. The court noted that Melino did not provide any medical evidence to contradict BMC's reliance on CDC recommendations. Additionally, Melino's argument that BMC should have considered alternative accommodations was waived as it was not raised in the lower court. The court upheld the district court's rulings, affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of BMC. View "Melino v. Boston Medical Center" on Justia Law