Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Jody Pham injured her neck and right shoulder while working at Smithfield Foods, a self-insured employer. Smithfield accepted the injury as a compensable workers’ compensation claim and paid benefits for over two years. In 2018, Smithfield stopped paying medical benefits, believing Pham’s employment was no longer a major contributing cause of her need for additional treatment. Pham filed a petition for a hearing with the Department of Labor and Regulation, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Pham failed to establish causation. Pham appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the ALJ’s decision, reasoning that Smithfield had the burden to show a change in circumstances to justify suspending benefits. Smithfield appealed.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court concluded that SDCL 62-7-33, which the circuit court relied on, did not apply because Smithfield’s pre-petition payments were voluntary and not based on a final order or settlement agreement. The court also found that Pham’s argument that Smithfield had the burden to prove non-compensability was incorrect. The court emphasized that Pham bore the burden to establish compensability since the issue had not been previously litigated or adjudicated.Regarding the expert testimony, the court noted that the ALJ found Dr. Jensen’s testimony more persuasive than Dr. Ripperda’s. The court held that the ALJ’s findings were not clearly erroneous and that the circuit court erred in reweighing the evidence. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision and reinstated the ALJ’s decision, concluding that Pham failed to meet her burden of proving that her work-related injury was a major contributing cause of her need for additional treatment. View "Pham v. Smithfield Foods" on Justia Law

Employees of Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc. filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts state court, claiming they were entitled to prevailing wages under the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) for work performed. They argued that their work fell within the scope of the PWA. Veolia removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of Veolia. The court concluded that the Special Act of 1997, which pertains to the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission, exempted Veolia from the obligation to pay prevailing wages under the PWA. The employees appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The central issue was whether the Special Act required Veolia to pay prevailing wages. The court noted that the outcome depended on unresolved questions of Massachusetts law and significant policy concerns. Consequently, the First Circuit decided to certify the dispositive state law questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for clarification.The First Circuit certified two questions: the meaning of "construction and design of improvements" in the Special Act and whether the Special Act is incompatible with the PWA under the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Metcalf v. BSC Group, Inc. The First Circuit retained jurisdiction over the appeal pending the resolution of these certified questions. View "Nicholls v. Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Katrina Robertson, an independent contractor working as a polygraph examiner for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was involved in an automobile accident while exiting the DIA campus. She sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that a DIA employee's negligence caused the accident. The government moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it had not waived its sovereign immunity under the FTCA because a private employer in similar circumstances would be immune from suit under Virginia law.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the government's motion to dismiss. The court found that the DIA was a "statutory employer" under the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act (VWCA) and that Robertson's injury occurred during the course of her work. Therefore, the VWCA provided the exclusive remedy, and the government was immune from the suit. The district court also denied Robertson's motion to certify a question to the Supreme Court of Virginia as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that under the FTCA, the United States is liable only to the extent that a private party would be liable in similar circumstances. Since a private employer in Virginia would be immune from a negligence suit under the VWCA if it were a statutory employer, the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Robertson v. United States" on Justia Law

Ada Martinez-Medina, a Hispanic female of Puerto Rican descent, worked for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and alleged that her supervisor assigned her work above her pay grade and took credit for her work. She filed two Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints alleging discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment, which were settled in August 2018. After the settlement, she experienced further issues, including a delayed performance review and derogatory comments from her acting supervisor. She filed another EEO complaint in March 2019, which was denied, leading her to file a lawsuit in federal district court.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Secretary of the USDA, finding that Martinez-Medina had not presented sufficient evidence to support her claims of disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Martinez-Medina did not establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment because the alleged adverse employment actions did not affect an identifiable term or condition of her employment. Additionally, the court found that she did not present evidence that the employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not granting her reassignment request was pretextual.Regarding the hostile work environment claim, the court concluded that the incidents Martinez-Medina cited were not severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment. For the retaliation claim, the court determined that there was no causal link between her protected EEO activity and the alleged retaliatory acts.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, granting summary judgment to the defendant on all claims. View "Martinez-Medina v. Rollins" on Justia Law

Ryan Vanicek was killed in a traffic accident when a tractor-trailer driven by Kenneth Kratt, on behalf of Sandair Corporation, collided with his pickup truck. Jessica Vanicek, Ryan's wife, filed a wrongful death and survival action against Kratt and Sandair. Lyman-Richey Corporation, Ryan's employer, intervened under Nebraska's worker's compensation statute. A magistrate judge struck Jessica's claim for punitive damages and denied her leave to amend her complaint. The district court later compelled a settlement over Jessica's objection and ordered the funds to be deposited without post-judgment interest.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska initially referred the issue of punitive damages to a magistrate judge, who struck the claim, applying Nebraska law. The district court overruled Jessica's objection to this order. The district court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and denied a motion for partial summary judgment on pre- and post-impact damages. The district court approved a $5 million settlement proposed by Lyman-Richey, finding it fair and reasonable based on expert reports and the defendants' insurance policy limits. Jessica appealed the denial of her motion to amend and the settlement approval.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed Jessica's appeal regarding the denial of her motion to amend for lack of jurisdiction, as she failed to object to the magistrate judge's order in the district court. The court affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement, finding no abuse of discretion in its evaluation of damages and the defendants' ability to satisfy the judgment. The court also upheld the district court's decision to deny post-judgment interest, concluding that Jessica was estopped from claiming it due to her attorney's dilatory conduct. View "Vanicek v. Lyman-Richey Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam, baristas at Starbucks stores in Buffalo and Depew, New York, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutory tenure protections for members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). They argued that these protections place an impermissible limitation on the President’s executive power. Both plaintiffs had previously filed decertification petitions with the NLRB, which were dismissed due to pending unfair labor practice proceedings against Starbucks.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their petitions had been dismissed, and they had not sought reinstatement. Additionally, the court agreed with the NLRB that the plaintiffs failed to allege compensable harm, which was necessary for their claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. By this time, the plaintiffs had abandoned their claims for injunctive relief and sought only a declaratory judgment that the NLRB members’ tenure protections were unconstitutional. The NLRB, aligning with the Acting Solicitor General, no longer defended the constitutionality of the tenure protections. The court held that there was no longer a live case or controversy because the parties were not sufficiently adverse; both sides agreed on the unconstitutionality of the tenure protections. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Cortes v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Bethany Scheer was employed by Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc. (SCL) from 2014 to 2019. During her employment, Scheer faced performance issues and was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) that included mandatory counseling through SCL’s employee assistance program (EAP). Scheer initially agreed to the PIP but later refused to sign a form authorizing the disclosure of her counseling attendance and compliance, leading to her termination. Scheer sued SCL under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discrimination based on a perceived disability.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of SCL. The court concluded that the mandatory referral to counseling did not constitute an adverse employment action because it did not cause a significant change in Scheer’s employment status, as required by precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis rejected the significance test previously used and established a new standard requiring plaintiffs to show they suffered "some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment." The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration under the new standard set forth in Muldrow. The district court must now determine if Scheer suffered "some harm" as a result of SCL’s actions. View "Scheer v. Sisters of Charity" on Justia Law

Cloetta Brady, a former Walmart employee, alleged sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after being denied a promotion to a daytime support manager position. Brady had worked at Walmart since 1987 and was a claims associate when she applied for the promotion in 2007. The position required passing the Supervisory Leadership Assessment (SLA), which Brady had not passed, while the selected candidate, Mike Harms, was already serving as a nighttime support manager and thus met the qualifications.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of Walmart, dismissing Brady's claims. Brady appealed, challenging only the summary judgment on her disparate treatment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court considered whether Brady presented direct evidence of sex discrimination or could create an inference of unlawful discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework. The court found that the statement by the store manager, Charles Cornelison, that Harms was promoted "because he was sick" and "had a family to support," was facially and contextually neutral and did not constitute direct evidence of sex discrimination. Additionally, Brady failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination as she did not meet the job qualifications, specifically the SLA requirement.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that Brady neither presented direct evidence of sex discrimination nor created an inference of unlawful discrimination through the McDonnell Douglas analysis. View "Brady v. Walmart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE), representing BNSF Railway Company employees, filed a lawsuit against BNSF alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). BMWE claimed BNSF improperly reduced the number of maintenance-of-way workers in favor of subcontractors, failed to maintain collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), and did not deal with BMWE in good faith. BNSF moved to dismiss the case, arguing it was a "minor dispute" under the RLA, requiring arbitration. The district court agreed and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted BNSF's motion to dismiss, determining the dispute was minor and thus outside the court's jurisdiction. The court explained that minor disputes, which involve interpreting specific terms of CBAs, must be resolved through arbitration. BMWE's claims were found to hinge on the interpretation of the CBAs, specifically regarding BNSF's use of subcontractors, making it a minor dispute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that BMWE's arguments required interpretation of the CBAs, classifying the dispute as minor. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction, as minor disputes must be resolved by the National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB). The court also rejected BMWE's argument that the dispute was a direct violation of § 2 First of the RLA, agreeing with other circuits that such claims still require contract interpretation and thus fall under minor disputes. The judgment of the district court dismissing BMWE’s complaint was affirmed. View "Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Dr. Joseph Jimenez, a former medical officer for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), alleged race and national origin discrimination, retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. Dr. Jimenez, who identifies as Hispanic, claimed that his employer required him to work as a correctional officer while non-Hispanic doctors were exempt. He also alleged that the BOP denied him a reasonable accommodation for his mental health conditions.The district court dismissed Dr. Jimenez’s Title VII claims related to certain adverse employment actions for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the BOP on the remaining Title VII claims, finding no evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motives. The court later dismissed Dr. Jimenez’s Rehabilitation Act claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, rejecting his attempt to correct a citation error in his complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that Dr. Jimenez failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his claims related to the denial of bonuses and failure to promote. The court also found that Dr. Jimenez did not present sufficient evidence to show that his race, national origin, or protected activity influenced the BOP’s actions. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the Rehabilitation Act claim, agreeing that the citation error was not a mere scrivener’s error and that Dr. Jimenez did not demonstrate good cause to amend his complaint after the scheduling order deadline. View "Jimenez v. Acting United States Attorney General" on Justia Law