Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Marlo Spaeth, an individual with Down syndrome, was employed by Wal-Mart for over 15 years. Her work schedule was changed from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., causing her significant difficulty in adapting due to her disability. Despite requests from Spaeth and her sister to revert to her original schedule, Wal-Mart did not accommodate her, leading to her termination for attendance issues. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on Spaeth’s behalf under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to accommodate her disability.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin held a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the EEOC. The jury awarded Spaeth $150,000 in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages, which the court reduced to $150,000 to comply with the ADA’s damages cap. The court also awarded backpay, prejudgment interest, and compensation for tax consequences, totaling $419,662.59. However, the district court denied the EEOC’s requests for broader injunctive relief, ordering only Spaeth’s reinstatement and communication with her guardian regarding future issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the jury’s findings on liability and the awards of compensatory and punitive damages. It held that Wal-Mart was aware of Spaeth’s need for a schedule accommodation due to her Down syndrome and failed to engage in the interactive process required by the ADA. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of punitive damages, noting Wal-Mart’s reckless indifference to Spaeth’s rights. The court also upheld the compensatory damages, finding them rationally related to the evidence of Spaeth’s emotional distress and depression.However, the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of broader injunctive relief and remanded for reconsideration. The court noted that the district court had incorrectly characterized all requested injunctive relief as “obey the law” injunctions and failed to consider the possibility of recurring discriminatory conduct. The district court was directed to reassess the need for injunctive measures to prevent future violations. View "EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P." on Justia Law

Darren J. Gray suffered a heart attack while working on a road construction project and applied for workers' compensation benefits. The Wyoming Workers’ Safety and Compensation Division denied his request. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings also denied the request, and the district court affirmed that decision. Mr. Gray appealed, arguing that his work exertion was unusual or abnormal under Wyoming law.The Office of Administrative Hearings found that Mr. Gray did not meet his burden of proof under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-603(b)(ii) to show that his work exertion was unusual or abnormal for his employment. The Hearing Examiner determined that the tasks Mr. Gray performed on the day of his heart attack, including lifting and slamming metal pipes, were consistent with the job duties of similarly-situated employees. The district court affirmed this decision, agreeing that Mr. Gray's exertion was not clearly unusual or abnormal for his type of employment.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Hearing Examiner's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence, including job descriptions and testimony from Mr. Gray's supervisor. The court found that the tasks Mr. Gray performed were within the normal scope of his employment duties. The court also noted that the independent medical examiner's testimony did not establish that the exertion was unusual. Therefore, the court concluded that Mr. Gray did not meet the statutory requirements for workers' compensation benefits for his heart attack. View "Gray v. State, Ex Rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division" on Justia Law

The case involves Ariel Schlosser, who was hired by VRHabilis, LLC (VRH) to perform unexploded ordnance (UXO) remediation. Schlosser, the only female diver, faced several incidents of alleged discrimination and harassment. She was singled out for a knot-tying test, prohibited from diving and driving the company vehicle, and subjected to verbal abuse by her supervisor, Tyler Sanders, and co-worker, Aaron Brouse. Schlosser reported the harassment, but VRH's response was inadequate, leading her to resign after ten weeks.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied VRH's motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial. After a four-day trial and three days of deliberations, the jury found that Schlosser was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex or gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The jury awarded Schlosser $58,170 in back pay. VRH filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict. The district court denied this motion, holding that the jury could reasonably conclude that Schlosser experienced severe and pervasive harassment based on her gender.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of VRH's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the jury could reasonably determine that Schlosser was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex or gender. The court held that the harassment was severe and pervasive, and that VRH was liable for the actions of Schlosser's supervisor and co-worker. The court emphasized the substantial deference owed to the jury's verdict and concluded that VRH had not overcome this deference. View "Schlosser v. VRHabilis, LLC" on Justia Law

James Moyer and other captive insurance agents sued GEICO, claiming they were misclassified as independent contractors and denied benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). They argued that GEICO should have classified them as employees, making them eligible for various benefits plans. The agents did not attach the relevant benefits-plan documents to their complaint, which are integral to their claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ordered the parties to provide the relevant plan documents. GEICO submitted documents it claimed governed the dispute, but the agents argued that the court could not rely on these documents without converting the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion and requested additional discovery. The district court disagreed, relied on the documents provided by GEICO, and dismissed the complaint, finding that the agents lacked statutory standing as they were not eligible for the benefits under the plan documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that there were legitimate questions about whether GEICO had provided a complete set of the relevant plan documents. The court noted issues with the authenticity and completeness of the documents, including redlines, handwritten notes, and missing pages. The court held that the district court should not have relied on these documents to dismiss the complaint without allowing the agents to conduct discovery. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Moyer v. GEICO" on Justia Law

Fernando Yates, a math teacher in his late sixties, alleged that Spring Independent School District (Spring ISD) discriminated and retaliated against him based on age, race, national origin, color, and disability. Yates was placed on multiple support plans due to performance concerns, reassigned from his eighth-grade math teaching position to a "push-in" role, and later to a seventh-grade math position before being replaced by a younger teacher. He was also placed on administrative leave following complaints from students and parents. Yates filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and later a lawsuit against Spring ISD.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Spring ISD. The court concluded that the actions taken against Yates did not constitute adverse employment actions under the pre-Hamilton standard, which required an "ultimate employment decision." The court also found that Yates failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and that Spring ISD provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which Yates could not prove were pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court acknowledged that the district court had applied an outdated standard but still found that Spring ISD had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The court held that Yates failed to show that these reasons were pretextual. Consequently, the summary judgment in favor of Spring ISD was affirmed. View "Yates v. Spring Independent School District" on Justia Law

Mychal Byrd was injured in an automobile accident caused by an unknown motorist and subsequently died from his injuries. Byrd's medical expenses, totaling $474,218.24, were covered by the Gilster-Mary Lee Corporation Group Health Benefit Plan, a self-funded plan subject to ERISA. Byrd had an automobile insurance policy with Nationwide Insurance Company, which provided $50,000 in uninsured-motorist coverage. After Byrd's death, his family sued Nationwide in state court to collect the insurance proceeds. The Plan intervened, removed the case to federal court, and claimed an equitable right to the insurance proceeds.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the Plan, determining that the Plan was entitled to the insurance proceeds under the plan document. The plaintiffs, initially proceeding pro se, did not respond to the motion for summary judgment. After obtaining counsel, they moved for reconsideration, which the district court denied. The plaintiffs then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court determined that the plaintiffs' claim did not fall within the scope of ERISA's civil enforcement provisions because the plaintiffs were neither plan participants nor beneficiaries. Consequently, the claim was not completely preempted by ERISA, and the federal court did not have jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to Missouri state court. View "Kellum v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corporation Group Health Benefit" on Justia Law

The case involves the Restaurant Law Center and the Texas Restaurant Association challenging a final rule by the Department of Labor (DOL) that restricts when employers can claim a "tip credit" for "tipped employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The tip credit allows employers to pay tipped employees a lower hourly wage, assuming tips will make up the difference to meet the minimum wage. The DOL's final rule imposes limits on the amount of non-tip-producing work a tipped employee can perform while still allowing the employer to claim the tip credit.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, stating they would not suffer irreparable harm. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs had shown irreparable harm and remanded the case for further consideration. On remand, the district court evaluated the merits and granted summary judgment in favor of the DOL, holding that the final rule was a permissible interpretation of the FLSA under Chevron deference and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the final rule was contrary to the clear statutory text of the FLSA and was arbitrary and capricious. The court held that the FLSA's definition of a "tipped employee" does not support the DOL's restrictions on non-tip-producing work. The court concluded that the final rule improperly focused on the pursuit of tips rather than the duties of the occupation itself. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the DOL, rendered summary judgment for the plaintiffs, and vacated the final rule. View "Restaurant Law Center v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

The petitioner worked part-time as a bus fueler and washer at Marble Valley Regional Transit (MVRT) for approximately four years. He passed a preemployment drug screen and signed an acknowledgment of MVRT’s drug and alcohol policy, which included random drug testing and termination for a positive drug test. In December 2022, he tested positive for marijuana during a random drug test and was terminated in January 2023 for violating U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations. The petitioner had a medical marijuana card issued in early 2020.The petitioner applied for unemployment benefits, which were denied by a claims adjudicator on the grounds of misconduct. He appealed to an administrative law judge (ALJ), who affirmed the denial but reduced the disqualification period to six weeks, recognizing the medical use of cannabis. The petitioner then filed a document with the Employment Security Board, seeking a declaratory ruling on the applicability of the misconduct disqualification provision to off-duty medical cannabis use. The Board treated this as an appeal and affirmed the ALJ’s decision, stating that the petitioner’s actions constituted misconduct under MVRT’s drug policy.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Board’s decision. The Court held that the Board properly declined to issue a declaratory ruling because the petitioner had an available remedy through a direct appeal. The Court emphasized that declaratory rulings are not a substitute for timely appeals of agency decisions. The petitioner’s appeal of the Board’s decision was dismissed as untimely, and the Court affirmed the Board’s order declining to issue a declaratory ruling. View "Skoric v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Amy Rae, a school nurse employed by Woburn Public Schools (WPS), alleged that she faced retaliatory harassment due to her advocacy for students with disabilities and complaints about her own mistreatment. Rae claimed that the harassment, primarily by Kennedy Middle School Principal Carl Nelson, began in 2011 and continued for over a decade. She filed a lawsuit in November 2022, asserting claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Massachusetts's antidiscrimination statute (Chapter 151B), and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Rae's complaint on May 5, 2023, ruling that she failed to state any claims for which relief could be granted. The court found that Rae could not rely on the continuing violations doctrine to save her untimely discrimination claims and dismissed her timely state and federal discrimination claims on other grounds.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's dismissal de novo. The appellate court agreed that Rae could not invoke the continuing violations doctrine to rescue her time-barred claims, as her allegations included discrete acts of retaliation that accrued separately. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of Rae's timely ADA, Section 504, and Chapter 151B claims, concluding that Rae did not plausibly allege severe or pervasive harassment necessary to sustain a retaliatory harassment claim. The court noted that Rae's allegations of two incidents within the actionable period were insufficient to meet the standard for severe or pervasive harassment. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Rae's complaint. View "Rae v. Woburn Public Schools" on Justia Law

Alvin Moore, a Black man, worked at Coca-Cola Bottling Company (CCBC) from 2015 to 2018. In March 2017, after a workplace accident, Moore tested positive for marijuana at a level below the company's threshold. Despite this, he signed a Second Chance Agreement (SCA) requiring random drug testing for 24 months. In June 2017, Moore was fired for insubordination but was reinstated under a Last Chance Agreement (LCA), which he signed under pressure. In 2018, Moore tested positive for marijuana again and was terminated. He sued CCBC for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Ohio law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of CCBC, finding that Moore had waived his pre-LCA claims by signing the LCA and failed to establish that CCBC's reasons for his termination were pretextual. The court presumed Moore had made a prima facie case for racial discrimination and retaliation but concluded that Moore did not show that CCBC's reasons for his termination were a pretext for discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Moore voluntarily waived his pre-LCA claims by signing the LCA. The court noted that Moore's union representative had advised him to sign the LCA, suggesting he could still pursue his claims. The court also found that Moore had shown enough evidence to suggest that CCBC's reasons for his termination could be pretextual, particularly in light of the different treatment of similarly situated white employees.The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Moore to pursue his claims of racial discrimination and retaliation. View "Moore v. Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc." on Justia Law