Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, Jose Emilio Ronderos, applied for a job with USF Reddaway, Inc. and Yellow Corporation (collectively, "Reddaway") and was required to sign an arbitration agreement as part of the application process. Ronderos later filed employment-related claims against Reddaway, alleging age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and other violations under California law. Ronderos claimed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Reddaway's motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, involved significant oppression, and contained a substantively opaque cost-splitting provision. The court also found that the agreement was substantively unconscionable due to its one-sided filing provision and preliminary injunction carve-out, which unfairly favored Reddaway. The district court declined to sever the unconscionable provisions and enforce the remainder of the agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. It held that the agreement involved significant oppression and some surprise, making it procedurally unconscionable. The court also found that the one-sided filing provision and preliminary injunction carve-out were substantively unconscionable. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the unconscionable provisions and affirmed the denial of Reddaway's motion to compel arbitration. View "Ronderos v. USF Reddaway, Inc." on Justia Law

Hunter Smith, a phlebotomist employed by Laboratory Corp of America (Labcorp), sustained a work-related back injury on January 27, 2021, when a shelving unit fell on his head. This incident led to acute lower back injuries requiring surgery. Despite the surgery, Smith continued to experience significant pain and other symptoms. Medical evaluations by Dr. Gregory Lanford and Dr. Jules Barefoot assessed a 24% permanent impairment rating, attributing 19% to the work injury and 5% to pre-existing conditions. Dr. Michael Best, however, disagreed, attributing all of Smith's back issues to pre-existing conditions and assessing a 10% impairment rating.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded Smith permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, accepting Dr. Best's 10% impairment rating but attributing 5% to the work injury. The ALJ also awarded benefits for Smith's psychological condition based on a 20% impairment rating by Dr. Robert Sivley, despite Labcorp's contention that this rating was improperly based on a conditional impairment rating.Labcorp appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, arguing that the ALJ improperly relied on Dr. Sivley's rating and should have accepted Dr. Trivette's 0% rating. Smith cross-appealed, arguing that the ALJ misapplied the AMA Guides and should not have admitted Dr. Best's report. The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, and both parties appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the Board's decision.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the ALJ's reliance on Dr. Sivley's impairment rating was justified and that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Court found no compelling reason to disturb the ALJ's findings, as they were not clearly erroneous. View "LABORATORY CORP. OF AMERICA V. HUNTER SMITH" on Justia Law

Jonathan Hardin, a former Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) officer, was terminated after the Chief of Police found he violated four Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). These violations stemmed from two incidents at a school where Hardin was a resource officer: one involving excessive force against a student and another where he failed to read Miranda rights to a juvenile. Hardin appealed his termination to the Louisville Metro Police Merit Board, which upheld the termination after finding he committed three of the four SOP violations.Hardin then appealed to the Jefferson Circuit Court, arguing that the Merit Board improperly considered expunged materials, violated his due process rights by admitting transcribed witness statements without cross-examination, and wrongfully relied on his arrest and criminal charges without a conviction. The Circuit Court affirmed the Merit Board's decision. Hardin further appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the expungement statute did not apply to the internal employment records of the LMPD's Professional Standards Unit (PSU). It also found that Hardin's due process rights were not violated by the Merit Board's consideration of sworn, transcribed witness statements, as the statutes allowed for such evidence and provided sufficient procedural safeguards, including the right to subpoena witnesses. Lastly, the Court ruled that the Chief's termination of Hardin was not arbitrary, even though it partially relied on his arrest and criminal charges, as there were other independent bases for the termination. View "HARDIN V. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT" on Justia Law

Dezmon Moore, a police officer with the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD), was terminated after the Chief of Police found he had committed three violations of the department's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). These violations stemmed from incidents involving domestic altercations with his wife, Bethel Moore, which led to multiple arrests and charges, including assault and violation of a no-contact order. Moore's criminal charges related to these incidents were eventually dismissed or expunged.Moore appealed his termination to the Louisville Metro Police Merit Board, which upheld the termination after finding he had committed two of the three SOP violations. The Jefferson Circuit Court affirmed the Merit Board's decision, and the Court of Appeals also affirmed, though it noted errors in the Merit Board's consideration of expunged materials and transcribed witness statements without cross-examination. However, the Court of Appeals deemed these errors harmless.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case. The Court held that the Merit Board did not violate Moore's statutory or constitutional due process rights by considering transcribed witness statements without live testimony and cross-examination. The Court found that the statutes governing the Merit Board provided sufficient procedural safeguards, including the opportunity for Moore to subpoena witnesses. The Court also determined that the expungement statutes did not apply to the internal employment records of the LMPD's Professional Standards Unit (PSU), and thus, the Merit Board did not err in considering those materials.Finally, the Court held that Moore's termination was not arbitrary, even though it was based on arrests and charges rather than convictions. The Chief's decision was supported by proper evidence, and the Merit Board's affirmation of the termination was justified. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT V. MOORE" on Justia Law

Sara Caruso, a flight attendant for Delta Air Lines, failed a breathalyzer test on August 4, 2018, after a layover in Dallas, Texas. Caruso claimed she was drugged and sexually assaulted by Delta First Officer James Lucas the night before. The Dallas Police Department found insufficient evidence to support her claim, and Delta also took no action against Lucas after its investigation. Caruso completed an alcohol rehabilitation program and sought accommodations from Delta for PTSD related to the alleged assault. Although Delta and Caruso initially agreed on accommodations, Caruso resigned after a month back at work.Caruso sued Delta in Massachusetts state court, alleging violations of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which granted summary judgment for Delta on all counts. The court found no causal connection between Delta's actions and the alleged harassment and determined that Delta responded reasonably to the allegations. Additionally, Caruso's disability discrimination claims failed because she did not engage in an interactive process in good faith with Delta to develop reasonable accommodations.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Caruso failed to show a causal connection between Delta's actions and the alleged harassment, and that Delta's investigation and response were reasonable. The court also found that Caruso did not cooperate in the interactive process for her disability accommodations, and her retaliation claims were either waived or undeveloped. Thus, the summary judgment for Delta was affirmed on all counts. View "Caruso v. Delta Air Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

Aimee Sturgill, a registered nurse and devout Christian, objected to the American Red Cross's COVID-19 vaccination mandate, citing her religious beliefs. She requested a religious exemption, explaining that her faith required her to treat her body as a temple and avoid defiling it with the vaccine, which she believed could cause harm due to her blood clotting disorder. The Red Cross denied her request, stating that her objections were medically, not religiously, based and terminated her employment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Sturgill's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court held that she did not plausibly allege a prima facie case for a failure-to-accommodate claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court also concluded that Sturgill did not set forth a separate disparate-treatment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred by requiring Sturgill to establish a prima facie case at the pleading stage, which is not necessary under the plausibility standard set by Twombly and Iqbal. The appellate court found that Sturgill's complaint plausibly alleged that her refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine was an aspect of her religious observance or belief. However, the court agreed with the district court that Sturgill's complaint did not set forth a standalone disparate-treatment claim. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sturgill v. American Red Cross" on Justia Law

Paul Carnes, an employee of Consolidated Grain and Barge Co., was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease in 2019 and received medical treatment for it. HMO Louisiana, Inc., the administrator of Consolidated Grain’s employer-sponsored health plan governed by ERISA, paid for some of Carnes’s treatments but not all. Carnes filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, which was settled without the employer accepting responsibility for his medical claims. With an outstanding medical balance of around $190,000, Carnes sued HMO Louisiana, alleging it violated Illinois state insurance law by not paying his medical bills and sought penalties for its alleged "vexatious and unreasonable" conduct.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed Carnes’s complaint on the grounds that his state law insurance claim was preempted by ERISA. The court allowed Carnes to amend his complaint to plead an ERISA claim, but instead, Carnes moved to reconsider the dismissal. The district court denied his motion and ordered the case closed. Carnes then appealed the final order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that Carnes’s state law claim was preempted by ERISA. The court noted that ERISA’s broad preemption clause supersedes any state laws relating to employee benefit plans, and Carnes’s claim fell within this scope. The court also found that ERISA’s saving clause did not apply because the health plan in question was self-funded, making it exempt from state regulation. The court concluded that Carnes’s attempt to frame his suit as a "coordination of benefits dispute" was an impermissible effort to avoid ERISA preemption. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of Carnes’s case. View "Carnes v. HMO Louisiana, Inc." on Justia Law

Two employees, Tanika Parker and Andrew Farrier, participated in 401(k) plans managed by subsidiaries of Tenneco Inc. The plans were amended to include mandatory individual arbitration provisions, which required participants to arbitrate disputes individually and barred representative, class, or collective actions. Parker and Farrier alleged that the fiduciaries of their plans breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to prudently manage the plans, resulting in higher costs and reduced retirement savings. They sought plan-wide remedies, including restitution of losses and disgorgement of profits.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the fiduciaries' motion to compel individual arbitration. The court found that the arbitration provisions limited participants' substantive rights under ERISA by eliminating their ability to bring representative actions and seek plan-wide remedies, which are guaranteed by ERISA.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 individual arbitration provisions were unenforceable because they acted as a prospective waiver of the participants' statutory rights and remedies under ERISA. The court emphasized that ERISA allows participants to sue on behalf of a plan and obtain plan-wide relief, and the arbitration provisions' restrictions on representative actions and plan-wide remedies violated these statutory rights. Consequently, the arbitration provisions were invalid, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "Parker v. Tenneco, Inc." on Justia Law

John Smith, an employee of Sysco Indianapolis, LLC, did not receive a monthly benefit check he expected. His labor union, Teamsters Local 135, filed a grievance on his behalf, alleging that Sysco violated their 2018 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by not providing a $500 Supplemental Early Retirement Benefit (SERB) to certain retirees and employees. Sysco participated in the initial grievance process but refused to proceed to arbitration, arguing that the grievance was not arbitrable under the CBA. Sysco then sought a declaratory judgment from the district court, while the Union counterclaimed for a declaration that the grievance was arbitrable.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana sided with Sysco, finding that the monthly benefit was governed by terms outside the CBA and that the parties' bargaining history indicated they did not intend for the benefit to be arbitrable. The court granted Sysco's motion for summary judgment and denied the Union's counterclaims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reached a different conclusion. The appellate court found that Sysco failed to present the "most forceful evidence" required to exclude the monthly benefit from the arbitration provision in the CBA. The court noted that the grievance fell within the scope of the arbitration clause on its face and that the CBA did not explicitly exclude the SERB from arbitration. The court also found that the parties' bargaining history did not clearly demonstrate an intent to exclude the benefit from arbitration. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the grievance must be sent to arbitration. View "Sysco Indianapolis LLC v. Teamsters Local 135" on Justia Law

Covenant Construction Services, LLC was the prime contractor on a federal construction project for a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facility in Iowa City, Iowa. Covenant subcontracted with Calacci Construction Company, Inc. to supply carpentry labor and materials. Calacci had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with two regional unions, requiring it to pay fringe-benefit contributions to the Five Rivers Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund and Education Trust Fund (the Funds). Despite multiple demands, Calacci failed to remit the required contributions.The Funds filed a lawsuit under the Miller Act to collect the unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees from Covenant and its surety, North American Specialty Insurance Company. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment in favor of the Funds, concluding that the Funds had standing to sue and that the Miller Act notice was properly served and timely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Funds sufficiently complied with the Miller Act's notice requirements by sending the notice to Covenant's attorney, who confirmed receipt. The court also held that the notice was timely as it was filed within 90 days of the last day of labor on the project. Additionally, the court upheld the award of liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, finding that the CBA obligated Calacci to pay these amounts and that Covenant, as the prime contractor, was liable for the amounts due under the payment bond.The Eighth Circuit concluded that the Funds were entitled to recover the unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees from Covenant and its surety, affirming the district court's judgment. View "Five Rivers Carpenters v. Covenant Construction Services" on Justia Law