Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Mone Yvette Sanders filed a class and representative action against her former employer, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., alleging wage and hour claims under the Labor Code and a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The trial court granted Edward Jones’s motions to compel arbitration of Sanders’s individual Labor Code and PAGA claims and stayed the representative PAGA cause of action pending arbitration. Sanders initiated arbitration, but Edward Jones failed to pay $54,000 in fees within 30 days as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. Sanders then moved to vacate the order compelling arbitration and proceed in court.The trial court initially granted Sanders’s motion, finding section 1281.98 was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). However, after Edward Jones submitted new authority, the court reconsidered and denied Sanders’s motion, concluding section 1281.98 was preempted by the FAA. Sanders filed a petition for writ of mandate.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court held that section 1281.98, which allows an employee to withdraw from arbitration if the employer fails to pay fees within 30 days, is not preempted by the FAA. The court found that section 1281.98 furthers the FAA’s goal of expeditious arbitration and does not undermine the FAA’s objectives. The court also determined that the trial court, not the arbitrator, should decide whether there has been a default under section 1281.98.The Court of Appeal granted Sanders’s petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying Sanders’s motion to withdraw from arbitration and allowing her to pursue her claims in court. The trial court was also instructed to consider Sanders’s motion for sanctions under section 1281.99. View "Sanders v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Kelly Rose, a former cashier at Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued her employer under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), alleging violations of the “suitable seating” provisions of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. After a nine-day bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, and judgment was entered accordingly. Rose appealed, but the judgment was affirmed. Subsequently, Hobby Lobby sought nearly $125,000 in litigation costs as the prevailing party, which the trial court ordered the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to pay, despite the LWDA not participating in the litigation.The LWDA appealed the cost order, raising the issue of whether it could be held liable for litigation costs in a PAGA action where it did not participate. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court concluded that even if a prevailing defendant in a PAGA action is entitled to recover costs under the general cost recovery rule, those costs are not recoverable against the LWDA if it did not participate in the litigation. The court emphasized that the LWDA was not a party to the lawsuit and did not take any action until after the judgment was entered.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order requiring the LWDA to pay Hobby Lobby's litigation costs. The court held that the LWDA, as the real party in interest in a PAGA action, is not liable for costs if it did not intervene or participate in the litigation. The decision clarified that the LWDA's role in PAGA actions does not automatically make it liable for litigation costs incurred by a prevailing defendant. View "Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores" on Justia Law

Dyamond Davis, an employee at the Shapiro Development Center, informed her supervisor on May 12, 2017, that she needed to leave work due to pregnancy-related morning sickness. Her supervisor allowed her to leave, reminding her to complete the necessary paperwork. Davis was later granted FMLA leave retroactive to May, but DHS determined that part of her May 12 absence was unauthorized because it believed FMLA did not cover morning sickness and that Davis violated policies requiring the substitution of accrued paid leave for FMLA leave. Consequently, DHS terminated her employment. Davis appealed her termination unsuccessfully to the Illinois Civil Service Commission and then filed a lawsuit alleging FMLA interference. Another employee, Antionette Burns, joined the lawsuit with a similar claim.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed Burns’s claim for lack of Article III standing and granted summary judgment in favor of DHS on Davis’s claim. The court found that Burns failed to establish a concrete injury-in-fact and that DHS was entitled to rely on the medical certification provided by Davis’s doctor, which did not indicate a need for intermittent leave for morning sickness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of Burns’s claim without prejudice, agreeing that she failed to establish a concrete injury-in-fact. However, the court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding Davis’s FMLA claim. The court noted that morning sickness qualifies as a serious health condition under FMLA and that DHS was aware of Davis’s need for intermittent leave due to morning sickness. The court also found that DHS may have improperly applied its paid leave substitution policy, which could have led to Davis’s termination. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for DHS on Davis’s claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Davis v Illinois Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Eric Moore, an employee of Industrial Demolition LLC, injured his hip while working at the Brayton Point Power Station demolition site in December 2019. Despite his injury, Moore was able to continue working with reasonable accommodations. He returned to work with a doctor's note outlining his limitations and requested accommodations from Industrial Demolition. Although initially allowed to work with restrictions, Moore's supervisor became hostile towards him, leading to Moore's termination after an argument over his job-related limitations and requests for accommodation.A federal jury in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that Industrial Demolition failed to accommodate Moore's injury and retaliated against him for requesting or using a reasonable accommodation. The jury awarded Moore $10,035 in damages. Both Moore and Industrial Demolition were dissatisfied with the result and sought to reverse or amend the judgment or to grant a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's verdict, finding that the jury's determination that Moore was retaliated against for requesting or using a reasonable accommodation was supported by sufficient evidence. The court also upheld the district court's decision to allow the jury to consider the NLRB settlement payment in calculating damages, rejecting Moore's argument that the settlement should be excluded as collateral source income. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Moore's motion for a new trial on the issue of punitive damages, concluding that the evidence did not support a finding of outrageous or egregious conduct by Industrial Demolition warranting punitive damages. View "Moore v. Industrial Demolition LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves two Utah corporations, 3484, Inc. and 3486, Inc., created by film producer David Wulf to produce Hallmark movies. The companies shared personnel, including Jennifer Ricci and Brett Miller, who were responsible for various production roles. In April 2021, drivers employed by 3484 contacted a union representative to discuss organizing. Ricci questioned driver April Hanson about union activity and asked her to keep the conversation confidential. Later, Miller warned driver Roy Brewer that production would move to Canada if the drivers organized. The drivers went on strike, and after the strike, 3486 refused to reinstate them, alleging misconduct.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that the Employers committed unfair labor practices, including unlawful interrogation and threats, and ordered remedies. The Employers argued that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's procedures and remedies were unauthorized or violated their constitutional rights. The Employers filed a petition for review, and the NLRB filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings, except for the finding that 3484 unlawfully interrogated Hanson. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Employers' constitutional challenges and 3486's challenge to the Board's statutory authority because these arguments were not preserved for appellate review. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, except for the finding related to Hanson's interrogation, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "3484, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

The case involves a former principal of a charter school, Emily Roseberry, who alleged that the school district superintendent, Pauline Harvey, overstepped her authority in violation of Alaska statutes and the governing charter school contract and bylaws. Roseberry was fired after making complaints about Harvey’s conduct to the superintendent, the board of education, and an independent commission. Roseberry initially filed suit in federal court, raising federal civil rights claims and a state whistleblower claim. The federal court dismissed her federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state whistleblower claim.Roseberry then filed suit in state court, bringing the whistleblower claim and three additional state-law claims: intentional interference with contractual relations, negligent supervision, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by issue and claim preclusion. The superior court agreed and dismissed the complaint. Roseberry appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and concluded that Roseberry’s state claims were not barred by issue and claim preclusion. The court held that the federal court’s dismissal of Roseberry’s First Amendment claim did not preclude her whistleblower claim because the definitions of “matter of public concern” under the First Amendment and the Alaska Whistleblower Act are different. The court also held that Roseberry’s additional state-law claims were not barred by claim preclusion because the federal court would likely have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, given that it had already declined to exercise jurisdiction over the whistleblower claim.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reversed the superior court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Roseberry v. North Slope Borough School District" on Justia Law

Danette Hester, a Special Agent for the IRS in Iowa, applied for a Criminal Investigator position in Georgia but was not hired. After filing a discrimination complaint, the IRS proposed her termination for alleged misconduct. Hester sued, claiming discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the IRS, and Hester appealed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS on all counts. Hester, a 53-year-old Black woman, alleged retaliation and race, sex, and age discrimination. The district court found that Hester did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Hester met her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination but failed to show that the IRS's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring her was pretextual. The court noted that the IRS limited the hiring to one position due to an upcoming reorganization and that the selected candidate had qualifications Hester lacked, such as fluency in Spanish.Regarding age discrimination, the court found that the four-year age difference between Hester and the selected candidate was not significant enough to support her claim. For the retaliation claim, the court held that Hester did not establish a causal connection between her discrimination complaint and the proposed termination, as the seven-month gap was insufficient to infer causation.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Hester failed to provide evidence that the IRS's reasons for its actions were pretextual or that her age, race, or sex played a role in the decision not to promote her. View "Hester v. U.S. Department of Treasury" on Justia Law

Charlene Carter, a flight attendant for Southwest Airlines, was terminated after sending graphic anti-abortion messages to the president of the flight attendants' union, Audrey Stone. Carter, a pro-life Christian, opposed the union's leadership and its participation in the Women's March, which she viewed as supporting abortion. After an arbitrator found that Southwest had cause to terminate Carter under its corporate policies, Carter sued Southwest and the union, claiming her termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Railway Labor Act (RLA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of Carter, finding that Southwest and the union had discriminated against her based on her religious beliefs and practices. The court permanently enjoined Southwest and the union from interfering with the religious expression of any Southwest flight attendant and held Southwest in contempt for failing to comply with its judgment. Both Southwest and the union appealed, and Carter cross-appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's denial of Southwest's motion for judgment as a matter of law on Carter's belief-based Title VII claim and RLA retaliation claim, remanding with instructions to enter judgment for Southwest. The court affirmed the judgment against Southwest on Carter's practice-based Title VII claims and the dismissal of Carter's RLA interference claim. The court also affirmed the judgment against the union on all claims but vacated the permanent injunction and remanded for additional proceedings. Additionally, the court vacated the contempt order against Southwest. View "Carter v. Southwest Airlines Company" on Justia Law

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (BlueCross) is an insurer and fiduciary for an ERISA-governed group health insurance plan. A plan member in New Hampshire sought coverage for fertility treatments, which BlueCross denied as the plan did not cover such treatments. The Commissioner of the New Hampshire Insurance Department initiated an enforcement action against BlueCross, alleging that the denial violated New Hampshire law, which mandates coverage for fertility treatments. BlueCross sought to enjoin the state regulatory action, arguing it conflicted with its fiduciary duties under ERISA.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied BlueCross's request for relief and granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. The court found that the Commissioner’s enforcement action was against BlueCross in its capacity as an insurer, not as a fiduciary, and thus was permissible under ERISA’s saving clause, which allows state insurance regulations to apply to insurers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the Commissioner’s action was indeed against BlueCross as an insurer, aiming to enforce New Hampshire’s insurance laws. The court noted that ERISA’s saving clause permits such state actions and that BlueCross could not use its fiduciary duties under ERISA to evade state insurance regulations. The court also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America v. Ward, which established that state insurance regulations are not preempted by ERISA when applied to insurers. Thus, the Sixth Circuit concluded that ERISA did not shield BlueCross from the New Hampshire regulatory action. View "BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee v. Nicolopoulos" on Justia Law

Trenton Johnson, an employee of Concorp, Inc., was injured while performing maintenance work at Exide Technologies, Inc.'s plant in Kansas City, Missouri. Johnson fell into a vat of molten lead while replacing a belt on a conveyor, resulting in severe burns. He subsequently sued Exide for negligence in Missouri state court.The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, where the parties engaged in discovery and briefed the issue of whether Johnson's exclusive remedy was under Missouri's workers' compensation system. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Exide, concluding that Johnson's claim was indeed limited to workers' compensation benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court examined whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Exide and Johnson under Missouri's workers' compensation statute. The court applied the means/control test and the statutory-employee status test. It found that Concorp, not Exide, had the means/control relationship with Johnson. However, the court determined that Johnson was a statutory employee of Exide because his work was performed under a contract and in the usual course of Exide's business.The Eighth Circuit held that Johnson's exclusive remedy for his injuries was through Missouri's workers' compensation system, and Exide was immune from the negligence claim. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Exide. View "Johnson v. Exide Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law