Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Monroe Operations, LLC, doing business as Newport Healthcare, hired Karla Velarde as a care coordinator and required her to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. Velarde was later terminated and filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination, retaliation, and violation of whistleblower protections. Newport Healthcare and its director of residential services, Amanda Seymour, filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied. The court found that Velarde was pressured to sign the agreement, which she did not want to do, and that the agreement unlawfully prohibited her from seeking judicial review of an arbitration award.The Superior Court of Orange County ruled that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was presented as an adhesive contract buried among 31 documents that Velarde had to sign quickly while an HR manager waited. Additionally, Newport Healthcare's HR manager made false representations about the nature and terms of the agreement, which contradicted the written terms, rendering the agreement substantively unconscionable. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration based on these findings.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found ample evidence of procedural unconscionability due to the pressure and misrepresentations made by Newport Healthcare. The court also found substantive unconscionability because the agreement did not conform to Velarde's reasonable expectations and placed her in a disadvantageous position. The appellate court concluded that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable and affirmed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC" on Justia Law

A custodian for a city police department sued the city and some of its employees, claiming she experienced sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). The custodian alleged that a deputy chief made her uncomfortable with his behavior and comments, and that after she reported this, she faced retaliation from her administrative manager, who threatened her and her coworkers.The Iowa District Court for Linn County denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the custodian's claims of sexual harassment and retaliation, except for the claim of constructive discharge. The defendants then sought interlocutory review.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the alleged harassment by the deputy chief was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support an ICRA claim. The court also determined that the alleged acts of retaliation by the administrative manager did not amount to a materially adverse action as required for an ICRA claim. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for dismissal of the custodian's claims. View "Rheeder v. Gray" on Justia Law

Richard Mooney sued his former employer, Roller Bearing Company of America (RBC), alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Washington Family and Medical Leave Act (WFMLA). Mooney claimed his termination was due to his age, depression, and decision to take leave under the FMLA, while RBC argued it was due to a reduction in force in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mooney filed the lawsuit in King County Superior Court, and RBC removed the case to federal court under federal question and diversity jurisdiction. The jury found RBC liable and awarded Mooney $160,000 in damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington calculated prejudgment interest based on a fluctuating federal rate. Mooney appealed, arguing that the higher state rate should have applied. The district court concluded it had discretion to select the appropriate rate and chose the federal rate, finding it the most accurate way to compensate Mooney for the lost use of his wages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that when a judgment is based equally on both state and federal claims, the district court has discretion to select a proper prejudgment interest rate. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the fluctuating federal rate was appropriate given the circumstances, including Mooney's litigation strategy and the combined nature of the state and federal claims. The court found no error in the district court's application of the federal rate and affirmed the judgment. View "Mooney v. Roller Bearing Company of America" on Justia Law

Martin Misjuns, a Fire Captain and paramedic with the Lynchburg Fire Department, was terminated after posting offensive social media content targeting transgender individuals. Misjuns alleged that his termination was due to his political and religious views, which he expressed on his Facebook pages. He claimed that the City of Lynchburg and its officials conspired to violate his constitutional rights, leading to his firing.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed all of Misjuns' claims. The court found that the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities were duplicative and dismissed them. The court also dismissed Misjuns' breach of contract, equal protection, conspiracy, and wrongful termination claims. The court partially dismissed his First Amendment claims but later dismissed them entirely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Misjuns' claims. The court held that Misjuns failed to establish Monell liability against the City of Lynchburg, as he did not adequately plead that a policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court also found that the City's Employment Policies & Procedures handbook did not constitute a binding contract, thus dismissing the breach of contract claim. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the conspiracy and wrongful termination claims against the individual defendants, as those claims were not asserted against the City and had been dismissed by agreement.The Fourth Circuit concluded that Misjuns did not sufficiently plead facts to state a claim for relief on any of his six claims, affirming the district court's decision. View "Misjuns v. City of Lynchburg" on Justia Law

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was passed over in favor of a lesbian woman. Subsequently, Ames was demoted from her role as a program administrator, and a gay man was hired to fill her previous position. Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation.The District Court granted summary judgment to the agency, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework for evaluating disparate-treatment claims. The court held that Ames failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not show "background circumstances" suggesting the agency discriminated against majority-group members. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, requiring Ames to meet this additional burden as a straight woman.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case. The Court held that the Sixth Circuit's "background circumstances" rule, which imposes a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs, is inconsistent with Title VII's text and precedents. Title VII prohibits discrimination against any individual based on protected characteristics without distinguishing between majority and minority groups. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for application of the proper prima facie standard under Title VII. View "Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services" on Justia Law

Peter Schuman and William Coplin, former employees of Atmel Corporation, were terminated without cause after Microchip Technology Inc. acquired Atmel. They were offered severance benefits significantly lower than those promised under Atmel's Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)-governed benefits plan, in exchange for signing a release of all potential claims. Schuman and Coplin signed the releases but later filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of approximately 200 similarly situated former Atmel employees, alleging ERISA violations, including breach of fiduciary duty and denial of benefits, and challenging the enforceability of the releases.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Microchip against Schuman and Coplin, applying a six-part test to determine that the releases were signed knowingly and voluntarily. The court did not consider evidence of Microchip's alleged breach of fiduciary duties in its analysis. The district court denied summary judgment for the non-named plaintiffs, finding material disputes of fact regarding Microchip's knowledge of the Plan's intended interpretation. The court entered final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for Schuman and Coplin, certifying the question of the appropriate legal test for determining the enforceability of the releases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment against Schuman and Coplin, holding that courts must evaluate the enforceability of ERISA releases by considering the totality of the circumstances, including any alleged improper conduct by the fiduciary. The court enumerated nine non-exhaustive factors for this evaluation. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Microchip's cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the issue raised was not inextricably intertwined with the primary appeal. View "Schuman v. Microchip Technology Inc." on Justia Law

Petra Brokken sued her employer, Hennepin County, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and wrongful discharge under Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute. Brokken claimed that the County's Covid-19 vaccine and testing policy conflicted with her religious beliefs. After initially granting her a religious exemption, the County revised its policy, threatening termination and loss of accrued benefits if she did not comply. Brokken retired under duress and subsequently filed her lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Brokken's claims. The court ruled that she failed to plead an adverse employment action, did not plausibly plead religious beliefs conflicting with the County’s policy, and that the MHRA does not provide a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs. Additionally, the court found that Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute does not create a private right of action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim under Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute, agreeing that it does not create a private right of action. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Brokken’s Title VII and MHRA claims. The appellate court held that Brokken plausibly pled an adverse employment action and sufficiently alleged that her religious beliefs conflicted with the County’s policy. The court also recognized that the MHRA provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Brokken v. Hennepin County" on Justia Law

Matthew Kale sued his employer, Aero Simulation, Inc. (ASI), alleging religious and disability discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Constitution, and state law. ASI required all employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, with non-compliance resulting in disciplinary action, including termination. Kale requested a religious exemption, citing his belief that his body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and should not be subjected to unwanted intrusions. ASI denied his request, and Kale was terminated. He filed a charge with the EEOC, which issued a right to sue letter.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota dismissed Kale’s claims, ruling that he failed to plausibly plead religious beliefs conflicting with ASI’s Covid-19 policy, did not allege that ASI regarded him as disabled due to his unvaccinated status, and that his proposed amended complaint was futile. Kale appealed the dismissal of his federal law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that Kale failed to allege facts showing that ASI’s testing requirement conflicted with his bona fide religious beliefs. The court noted that Kale’s complaint did not adequately connect his objection to testing with specific religious principles. Additionally, the court found that Kale did not exhaust his administrative remedies for his ADA claim, as he only asserted religious discrimination in his EEOC charge. The court also upheld the denial of Kale’s motion to amend his complaint, deeming it futile as it contained the same deficiencies as the original complaint. The judgment was affirmed. View "Kale v. Aero Simulation, Inc." on Justia Law

Matthew Bare sued his former employer, Rainforest Alliance, Inc., in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging that the company failed to pay him a redundancy settlement after his position was made redundant due to a reorganization. Bare claimed that he had agreed to resign in exchange for the settlement, which was contingent upon his execution of a release-of-claims agreement. However, after Bare made critical comments about the company, Rainforest Alliance terminated him and refused to pay the settlement, leading to claims of breach of contract and violation of the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law.The Superior Court dismissed Bare's complaint with prejudice, agreeing with Rainforest Alliance that Bare had failed to allege the occurrence of a condition precedent—specifically, the execution of a release agreement. The court found that without alleging this, Bare could not claim he had earned the redundancy payment under the contract or the wage law. Bare had argued that the issue of the condition precedent was a factual matter for summary judgment or trial and that Rainforest Alliance had waived the condition by not providing a release agreement. He also requested leave to amend his complaint if the motion to dismiss was granted.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the trial court should have granted Bare's request to amend his complaint. The appellate court found that Bare's request to amend was his first, the case had been pending for a short time, there was no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motives, and there was no prejudice to Rainforest Alliance. The court also determined that Bare's proposed amendment, which would include allegations that Rainforest Alliance waived the condition precedent by not providing a release agreement, was not futile. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bare v. Rainforest Alliance, Inc." on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Education announced a reduction in force (RIF) on March 13, 2025, affecting about half of its employees. Subsequently, twenty-one states and several labor organizations and school districts filed lawsuits against the Secretary of Education, the Department, and the President, claiming that the RIF violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They also sought an injunction against the transfer of certain functions out of the Department, announced by the President on March 21, 2025.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts consolidated the cases and granted the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, determining that the RIF and the transfer of functions were likely ultra vires and violated the APA. The court concluded that the actions were arbitrary and capricious, lacking a reasoned explanation and failing to consider the substantial harms to stakeholders.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the appellants' motion for a stay pending appeal. The court found that the appellants did not make a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits, particularly regarding the APA claims. The court also determined that the plaintiffs would suffer substantial injury without the injunction, as the RIF made it effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory functions. The court concluded that the public interest favored maintaining the injunction to ensure the Department could fulfill its legal obligations. View "New York v. McMahon" on Justia Law