Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

During her employment as an administrative assistant, Judy Valencia suffered a right knee injury, which was covered by workers' compensation. Following the knee injury, she altered her gait and started experiencing pain in her left foot, ankle, and hammertoe. She sought workers' compensation benefits for these injuries, contending that they were causally related to her compensable right knee injury. However, the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division denied the benefits, stating that the left foot, ankle, and hammertoe injuries were not related to the right knee injury. The Wyoming Medical Commission upheld the denial, and the district court affirmed the Commission's decision.In the Supreme Court, State of Wyoming, Valencia argued that her left foot, ankle, and hammertoe injuries either constituted a second compensable injury caused by her right knee injury or materially aggravated her preexisting left foot conditions. The court upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding that Valencia failed to meet her burden of proving either claim. The court noted that Valencia's treating physicians did not opine that her right knee injury or altered gait materially aggravated her preexisting left foot conditions. Additionally, the court found that an independent medical examiner's opinion, which stated that the right knee injury did not cause any temporary exacerbations or permanent material aggravation of Valencia's preexisting left foot conditions, was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of workers' compensation benefits for Valencia's left foot, ankle, and hammertoe injuries. View "Valencia v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho was tasked with answering a certified question of law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The question centered on the appropriate point of accrual for wage discrimination claims under the Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA) and the Idaho Equal Pay Act (IEPA). Plaintiff Lori S. Blasch accused her former employer, HP Inc., of wage discrimination and retaliation under the IHRA and the IEPA.The Idaho Supreme Court held that the one-year limitation period for IHRA claims begins when the pay-setting decision is made and communicated to the employee. As for IEPA claims, the court determined that they are subject to the four-year statute of limitations outlined in Idaho Code section 5-224. Furthermore, the limitation period for IEPA claims begins to run when the employee receives each discriminatory paycheck. The court made these decisions after reviewing the language of the relevant statutes and considering previous court decisions, legislative intent, and public policy. View "Blasch v. HP, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was presented with an appeal involving an Ohio hospital's mandate for its employees to get COVID-19 vaccines. The plaintiffs, a group of current and former employees who had requested religious exemptions from the mandate, sued the hospital for religious discrimination under Title VII and Ohio Revised Code § 4112 after the hospital initially rejected all religious exemptions. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, leading to this appeal.The appellate court affirmed the dismissal for the majority of plaintiffs, ruling they lacked standing to sue because they could not demonstrate sufficient injury. However, the court reversed the dismissal for two of the plaintiffs who had resigned after their religious exemption requests were denied but before the hospital changed its policy and granted all religious exemptions. The court held that these two plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that they were forced to resign, or "constructively discharged", and thus had standing to sue.Furthermore, the court found that these two plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the hospital failed to provide reasonable accommodations for their religious practices and treated them differently from other employees. Consequently, they had stated plausible claims for relief under Title VII and Ohio Revised Code § 4112. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning these two plaintiffs. View "Savel v. MetroHealth System" on Justia Law

The case was heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit between former Blue Cube employee Elizabeth Cerda and her former employer, Blue Cube Operations, L.L.C. Cerda had been terminated for receiving pay for hours she did not work and threatening to expose her co-workers to COVID-19. She sued Blue Cube under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII). The district court granted summary judgment to Blue Cube, which Cerda appealed.The Appeals Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Blue Cube. The Court found that Cerda failed to provide sufficient evidence for her FMLA claims. She did not adequately notify Blue Cube of her need or intent to take leave beyond her lunch breaks. The Court also dismissed Cerda's FMLA retaliation and Title VII sex discrimination claims due to lack of evidence of pretext. The Court found that Blue Cube had legitimate, non-retaliatory, and non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Cerda's employment.Furthermore, Cerda's Title VII sexual harassment claim was dismissed as she did not provide evidence that the harassment was based on her sex, was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment, or that Blue Cube had knowledge of the conduct. Lastly, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Cerda's request to reconvene a deposition on a second day. Thus, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Cerda v. Blue Cube Operations" on Justia Law

In the case considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, employee Michael Ashford sued his former employer, Aeroframe Services, and Aviation Technical Services (ATS), alleging unpaid wages and other damages. The case, which began in Louisiana state court and was later removed to federal court, was complicated by numerous claims and counterclaims among the parties, including third-party defendant Roger Allen Porter, who was Aeroframe's sole principal.Initially, Ashford and other employees pursued claims against Aeroframe and ATS, alleging that negotiations between the two companies led to Aeroframe's insolvency and employees' loss of wages. ATS, in turn, cross-claimed against Aeroframe and Porter, alleging financial losses from its failed attempt to acquire Aeroframe. Porter also cross-claimed against ATS, asserting tortious interference and unfair trade practices.The Court of Appeals previously remanded the case to the district court, finding that the parties were not aligned in their interests at the time of the lawsuit's filing, and the district court lacked jurisdiction due to lack of diversity among the parties. Upon reconsideration, however, the district court found new evidence indicating that the interests of Aeroframe, Porter, and the employees were aligned from the inception of the litigation and that an irrevocable settlement agreement between them existed, allowing removal under the relevant law.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the non-ATS parties' interests were aligned from the litigation's inception. The Court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims against ATS and the individual judgments against Aeroframe in favor of the employees. View "Ashford v. Aviation Technical Svc" on Justia Law

The plaintiff-Appellant, Kristen King, claimed that her employer, Aramark Services Inc., subjected her to a sex-based hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed King’s claims. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision on the New York State Human Rights Law claims but vacated the decision on the Title VII claims.The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the impact of Aramark’s alleged discriminatory acts were only incidentally felt in New York. Regarding the Title VII hostile work environment claim, the court found that King’s termination was not only a discrete act supporting a distinct claim for damages, but also part of the pattern of discriminatory conduct that comprises her hostile environment claim. The court held that because King’s termination occurred within the limitations period, the continuing violation doctrine rendered King’s hostile work environment claim timely. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of King’s New York State Human Rights Law claims but vacated the dismissal of King’s Title VII claims and remanded the case for further proceedings on those claims. View "King v. Aramark Services Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Peter Massaro, a police officer with the Fairfax County Police Department, alleged that his employer retaliated against him by transferring him to an inferior position after he filed a complaint about discrimination in promotion practices within the department. He sought relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to Fairfax County, dismissing all of Massaro's claims. The court held that Massaro failed to establish a causal connection between his initial discrimination complaint and his subsequent job transfer.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court ruled that the time gap between Massaro's complaint and his transfer was too long to support a causal inference. It found no evidence that the transfer was a result of a scheme to punish Massaro for his complaint. Instead, the court concluded that Massaro's transfer was a result of his own subsequent behavior that led to a violation of departmental policy.The court also dismissed Massaro's First Amendment claim, ruling that his promotion complaint made via an internal grievance process did not reflect a matter of public concern, and thus did not meet the threshold for First Amendment protection. View "Massaro v. Fairfax County" on Justia Law

In California, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) found that the Kern County Hospital Authority violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), a law that governs labor relations in the public sector. The violation occurred when the Authority unilaterally decided it could reject collective grievances filed by the Service Employees International Union, Local 521 (SEIU), without giving the Union the opportunity to negotiate this policy change.The dispute centered on the interpretation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Authority and SEIU. The Authority argued that the MOU only allowed individual employees to file grievances and did not explicitly permit collective grievances. Therefore, the Authority believed it had the right to reject any collective grievances.However, PERB ruled that the MOU was ambiguous on this point. PERB noted that while the MOU did not directly address collective grievances, it did contain a provision allowing for the consolidation of grievances. Furthermore, the MOU's language did not clearly and unambiguously exclude collective grievances. PERB found that the Authority's assertion that it could categorically reject collective grievances represented a new policy or a new interpretation of an existing policy, which amounted to a unilateral change in violation of the MMBA.Additionally, PERB rejected the Authority's argument that the Union had waived its right to bargain over this matter. PERB found that the Authority had not demonstrated that the Union knowingly and voluntarily relinquished its interest in collective grievances.As a result, PERB affirmed its earlier decision and denied the Authority's petition for writ of extraordinary relief. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District affirmed PERB's decision. View "Kern County Hospital Authority v. Public Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

The case involves Janay Garrick, a former instructor at Moody Bible Institute, who alleged sex discrimination and other Title VII violations. Garrick claimed that she was subjected to hostile treatment due to her gender and the Institute's religious beliefs. Moody argued that her suit was barred by Title VII’s religious exemptions and the First Amendment doctrine of church autonomy. The district court denied Moody's motion to dismiss in part, leading to Moody's appeal.However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that it could only review a small class of interlocutory orders under the collateral order doctrine, and Moody's appeal did not fit within this class. The court found that the district court's denial of Moody's motion to dismiss was not conclusive, did not resolve important questions separate from the merits of the case, and would not effectively be unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.The appellate court also emphasized that Moody's defense, based on the doctrine of church autonomy, was not separate from the merits of Garrick's gender discrimination claims. Furthermore, the court noted that Moody's argument that it would experience irreparable harm without immediate review was unavailing, as the district court could limit discovery to instances of discriminatory treatment not implicated by Moody's religious beliefs. The court concluded that religious autonomy to shape and control doctrine would not be threatened by the further progression of Garrick's lawsuit. View "Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute" on Justia Law

Six full-time professors at the City University of New York filed a lawsuit challenging New York’s Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act, known as the Taylor Law, alleging it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The professors argued that the law unfairly compelled them to be part of a bargaining unit represented exclusively by the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY (PSC), despite their vehement disagreement with PSC's political views, specifically on issues related to Israel and Palestine. They also challenged a specific section of the Taylor Law which allows PSC to decline representation of non-union employees in certain proceedings.The defendants filed motions to dismiss the claims, which were granted by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The professors appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the professors' claims were foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, and that the professors failed to allege that the contested section of the Taylor Law violates the First Amendment. Thus, the court concluded that the PSC's exclusive representation of the professors in collective bargaining did not violate the First Amendment, and that the limited fiduciary duty imposed by the contested section of the Taylor Law did not burden their First Amendment rights. View "Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY" on Justia Law