Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Sandra Gardner, a member of the International Association of Machinists, sought to bring a lawsuit against her union and several of its officers, alleging that the General Secretary-Treasurer, Dora Cervantes, had misused union funds for personal travel, thereby breaching her fiduciary duty under federal law. Before filing suit, Gardner and other union members sent multiple letters to the union’s leadership demanding an accounting of the allegedly misappropriated funds and requesting that the union itself bring legal action against the implicated officers. The union responded by commissioning an independent accounting firm to investigate the claims, which ultimately found no evidence of wrongdoing. The union’s Executive Council, relying on this report, declined to take further action.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed Gardner’s verified application for leave to file suit under 29 U.S.C. § 501(b). The district court denied her application, concluding that Gardner had not satisfied the statutory “demand requirement” because the union had responded to her request by conducting an accounting and found no basis for further action. The court did not address whether Gardner had shown “good cause” to proceed with her claim, as required by the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Gardner had properly satisfied the demand requirement. The appellate court reasoned that Gardner’s letters clearly demanded both an accounting and that the union bring suit, and the union’s failure to initiate legal action meant the demand was not fully met. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Gardner’s application and remanded the case for the district court to consider whether Gardner has demonstrated good cause to proceed with her § 501 claim. View "Gardner v. International Association of Machinists" on Justia Law

Alex Kedas worked for the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for over thirty years, primarily as a senior resident engineer. In 2016, Kedas complained to management and legal counsel that a female colleague was receiving better job assignments due to gender favoritism. After his complaint, Kedas received a counseling memorandum, a negative performance evaluation, and was denied a merit-based bonus. In subsequent years, he was assigned less significant projects and faced additional disciplinary actions. Kedas believed these actions were retaliatory and ultimately resigned in 2021, claiming constructive discharge due to an intolerable work environment.Kedas filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court granted partial summary judgment for IDOT, finding that only certain actions—specifically, the counseling memorandum, the negative performance review, the denial of a bonus, and the 2018 job assignments—could be considered materially adverse employment actions. However, the court then found no sufficient evidence of a causal link between Kedas’s protected activity and his 2018 job assignments or constructive discharge. The remaining claims proceeded to trial, where the jury found IDOT had retaliated by issuing the counseling memorandum but awarded no damages.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment rulings de novo. The appellate court held that Kedas failed to present sufficient evidence to support claims of constructive discharge or a causal connection between his protected activity and the 2018 job assignments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could find in Kedas’s favor on these issues. View "Kedas v Illinois Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

An employee was hired by a company and, as a condition of employment, signed an agreement requiring all employment-related claims to be resolved through arbitration governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The agreement specified that the employer would pay all arbitration costs except for certain fees. After the employee reported alleged workplace harassment and was subsequently terminated, he sued the employer in California Superior Court for retaliation and other violations. The employer moved to compel arbitration, which the court granted, and arbitration commenced. After about a year, the arbitrator issued invoices for fees, which the employer failed to pay within 30 days of receipt, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. The employee then sought to withdraw from arbitration and proceed in court, arguing the employer’s late payment constituted a material breach under section 1281.98.The Superior Court denied the employee’s motion, reasoning that the arbitrator had set a new due date for payment and the employer paid within 30 days of that date. The California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statutory 30-day deadline applied from the original invoice date and that the employer’s late payment resulted in a material breach, allowing the employee to withdraw from arbitration. The Court of Appeal also held that section 1281.98 was not preempted by the FAA.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine whether section 1281.98 is preempted by the FAA. The court held that section 1281.98 is not preempted, but clarified that the statute does not abrogate longstanding contract principles allowing relief from forfeiture for non-willful, non-grossly negligent, or non-fraudulent breaches. The court reversed the Court of Appeal’s order lifting the stay and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the employer’s late payment was excusable and whether the employee suffered compensable harm. View "Hohenshelt v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Three residents and taxpayers of a Minnesota school district challenged a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the district and its teachers’ union. The agreement allowed teachers to take up to 100 days per year of paid leave to work for the union, with the union reimbursing the district for the cost of substitute teachers but not for the full salaries and benefits of the teachers on leave. The residents objected to the alleged political and campaign activities conducted by teachers during this leave and filed suit, claiming violations of the First Amendment, the Minnesota Constitution, and state labor law.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the case, finding that the residents lacked Article III standing. On an earlier appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the residents had adequately alleged municipal taxpayer standing at the motion to dismiss stage and remanded the case. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment for lack of standing, concluding that the residents had not shown a sufficient injury in fact. The residents appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and held that two of the residents, as current municipal taxpayers, had Article III standing because they demonstrated that district funds were expended solely due to the challenged union leave policy. The court found that the expenditure of funds, even if partially reimbursed, constituted a direct injury to municipal taxpayers. The court also held that the intermingling of local, state, and federal funds in the district’s general fund did not defeat standing. The judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Huizenga v. ISD No. 11" on Justia Law

Dorothy Bivens worked as a territory sales representative for a company that manufactures and distributes cleaning products. During a visit to a client’s motel, the client locked the office door and propositioned her, making her uncomfortable. Bivens reported the incident to her supervisor, who reassigned the client so she would not have further contact. Around the same period, the company’s president decided to reduce staff due to cost concerns, targeting positions in low-revenue territories, including Bivens’s. She was subsequently terminated.After her termination, Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging a hostile work environment, retaliation for reporting harassment, and racial discrimination under both Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The district court denied her motion to compel production of certain documents and granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims, finding insufficient evidence to support her allegations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment decision de novo. The appellate court held that, under Title VII, an employer can only be held liable for harassment by a non-employee (such as a client) if the employer itself intentionally caused or was substantially certain harassment would occur, rejecting the negligence standard adopted by most other circuits and the EEOC. The court found no evidence that the employer intended for Bivens to be harassed. The court also found that Bivens’s retaliation claim failed because the decisionmaker who terminated her was unaware of her complaint, and her racial discrimination claim failed due to lack of evidence that she was singled out because of her race. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "Bivens v. Zep, Inc." on Justia Law

An employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs began experiencing respiratory issues at work, which she attributed to the building environment. Over several years, she requested various accommodations, including changes to her work schedule, relocation of her workstation, and the use of air purifiers. The Department provided some accommodations, but the employee found them ineffective. In 2012, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and submitted a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) form to request leave for treatment. Later, she learned that a union steward had been informed of her cancer diagnosis by a human resources manager, which she had not expected. After returning to work, she continued to request further accommodations, eventually being allowed to work from home full-time.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the Department on all claims, including disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, unlawful disclosure of medical information, and retaliation or hostile work environment. The court found that the Department had provided reasonable accommodations, that there was no evidence of discrimination or retaliation, and that the employee had not shown a tangible injury from the alleged disclosure of her medical information.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The appellate court agreed that the Department had made reasonable efforts to accommodate the employee and that her dissatisfaction with the accommodations did not amount to a legal violation. However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the summary judgment on the unlawful disclosure claim, holding that requiring medical information for FMLA leave constituted an employer inquiry under the Rehabilitation Act, and that there were genuine issues of fact as to whether confidential medical information was improperly disclosed and whether the employee suffered a tangible injury as a result. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the unlawful disclosure claim. View "Mullin v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

An employee of a multinational information technology company alleged that his employer engaged in fraudulent practices by obtaining less expensive L-1 and B-1 visas for foreign workers who, according to him, should have been sponsored under the more costly H-1B visa program. He claimed this allowed the company to avoid paying higher application fees and payroll taxes owed to the U.S. government. The employee also asserted that after he reported these alleged practices internally, the company retaliated against him by imposing unrealistic performance goals, removing him from a key client account, and ultimately terminating his employment.After the employee filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the government declined to intervene. The district court dismissed the employee’s first amended complaint, holding that he failed to state a claim for a reverse false claim under the FCA because the company was not obligated to pay higher payroll taxes or application fees for visas it never sought. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that the employee’s reports concerned only potential statutory and regulatory violations, not FCA-protected activity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the reverse false claim, concluding that the employer had no established obligation under the FCA to pay higher payroll taxes or H-1B visa fees for visas it did not apply for. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, holding that the employee sufficiently alleged he engaged in protected activity under the FCA and that the employer retaliated against him for this conduct. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the retaliation claim. View "United States v. Tata Consultancy Services, LTD" on Justia Law

An employee who worked as a packaging operator began experiencing left shoulder pain, which she attributed to her work activities. After seeking medical treatment, including surgery, her employer and its workers’ compensation insurer initially accepted her claim as work-related but later denied it based on an independent medical examination. While the workers’ compensation claim was pending, the employee’s health insurer paid for her medical expenses as required by Minnesota law when compensability is disputed. The employee then filed a workers’ compensation claim seeking a determination that her injury was compensable and that her employer should cover her medical expenses. The health insurer was notified of its right to intervene in the proceedings but did not do so within the statutory deadline.A compensation judge found the employee’s injury was work-related and compensable, but concluded that the employee could not bring a direct claim for medical expenses already paid by her health insurer, reasoning that only medical providers, not insurers, could be the subject of such claims. The judge also ruled that the health insurer’s failure to intervene extinguished its right to reimbursement. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed, holding that the employee could bring a direct claim for the medical expenses paid by the health insurer and that the employer and its insurer must reimburse the health insurer, despite its failure to intervene.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that, consistent with its recent decision in Johnson v. Concrete Treatments, Inc., an employee may bring a direct claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act for medical expenses related to a compensable work injury, even if those expenses were paid by a health insurer before compensability was determined. However, the Court also held that the WCCA erred in reviving the health insurer’s independent intervenor interest, which was extinguished by its failure to timely intervene. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Brunner vs. Post Consumer Brands" on Justia Law

Two fiduciaries, who managed retirement and welfare funds for a New York City law enforcement union, were found to have improperly withdrawn over $500,000 from the union’s annuity fund. The withdrawals, which occurred over several years, were facilitated by one defendant preparing false authorization forms and the other signing and submitting them to the fund’s custodian. The funds were then transferred to the union’s operating account and used for unauthorized purposes, including personal enrichment and unrelated union expenses. The defendants misrepresented the nature of these withdrawals to both the fund’s custodian and union members, and they continued the scheme even after being warned by auditors that their actions were improper.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over a joint jury trial, where both defendants were convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. One defendant was also convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and multiple counts of tax evasion. The district court denied motions to sever the trials, found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions, and imposed restitution and forfeiture orders. The court also addressed government discovery errors by granting a continuance and requiring early disclosure of materials, but declined to impose harsher sanctions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed claims of improper joinder, insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and errors in restitution calculation. The court held that joinder was proper because the indictment sufficiently linked the fraud and tax offenses, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the attorney’s illness did not constitute per se ineffective assistance. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of discovery issues or restitution calculation, and no reversible prosecutorial misconduct. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Wynder" on Justia Law

A multiemployer pension fund managed by the Operating Engineers Local 324 Pension Fund assessed withdrawal liability against Ace-Saginaw Paving Company after Ace partially withdrew from the fund in December 2018. The dispute centered on the interest rate assumption used to calculate the withdrawal liability. Ace argued that the rate should match the fund’s minimum funding interest rate of 7.75%, resulting in a lower liability, while the fund’s actuary used a much lower rate of 2.27% (the PBGC rate), resulting in a significantly higher liability. The actuary’s choice of rate was based on policy considerations and a desire to protect the fund’s remaining employers, rather than his best estimate of the fund’s anticipated investment experience.The parties proceeded to arbitration, as required by ERISA. The arbitrator found that the actuary’s use of the 2.27% rate violated 29 U.S.C. § 1393(a)(1) because it was not the actuary’s best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan. The arbitrator ordered the fund to recalculate Ace’s withdrawal liability using a rate that complied with the statutory requirements. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan affirmed the arbitrator’s findings and granted summary judgment to Ace on the statutory violation, but declined Ace’s request to require use of the minimum funding rate as the remedy, instead allowing the fund’s actuary another opportunity to select a compliant rate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the actuary’s use of the PBGC rate was not his best estimate and thus violated ERISA. The court also held that, on remand, the actuary may use a different rate from the minimum funding rate only if it is justified by factors that improve the accuracy of the withdrawal liability calculation, not by policy considerations. The court denied both parties’ requests for attorney’s fees. View "Ace-Saginaw Paving Co. v. Operating Engineers Local 324" on Justia Law