Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Angel Matta was hired by Dakota Provisions in February 2020 as a production worker. Matta had attendance issues documented by his employer and was injured at work on March 23, 2020, leading to several weeks of missed work. He filed a workers' compensation claim and was terminated by Dakota Provisions one month later. Matta then filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination and violation of public policy. Dakota Provisions moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted. Matta appealed the decision.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Beadle County, South Dakota, reviewed the case. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Dakota Provisions, concluding that Matta was an at-will employee and could be terminated for any lawful reason. The court also found that Matta failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his disability discrimination claim and did not recognize a common law tort for retaliatory discharge based on a disability.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision in part, agreeing that Matta was an at-will employee and that his termination did not violate public policy based on disability discrimination. However, the court reversed the summary judgment regarding Matta's claim of retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Matta's termination was pretextual and retaliatory, given the proximity of his termination to his workers' compensation claim and the inconsistent reasons provided by Dakota Provisions for his termination. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "Matta v. Dakota Provisions" on Justia Law

Stephnie Trujillo filed a complaint against her former employer, J-M Manufacturing Company (JMM), and four former coworkers, alleging unlawful sexual/gender discrimination, harassment, failure to prevent such actions, retaliation, and seeking injunctive relief. The parties negotiated and entered into a post-dispute stipulation for arbitration, which was approved by the trial court. Arbitration commenced, and JMM paid the arbitrator’s invoices for over a year. However, JMM failed to pay an invoice by the due date of September 12, 2022, but paid it immediately upon being reminded on October 18, 2022. Trujillo then sought to withdraw from arbitration under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which the trial court granted.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration, finding that JMM’s late payment constituted a material breach under section 1281.98, which does not allow exceptions for inadvertent delays or lack of prejudice. The court lifted the stay on trial court proceedings, allowing the case to proceed in court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that section 1281.98 did not apply because the parties entered into a post-dispute stipulation to arbitrate, not a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. Additionally, JMM was not considered the “drafting party” as defined by section 1280, subdivision (e), which refers to the company that included a pre-dispute arbitration provision in a contract. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions to deny Trujillo’s motion to withdraw from arbitration and to reinstate the stay of trial court proceedings pending completion of arbitration. View "Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Edgar Gonzalez worked for Nowhere Santa Monica, one of ten related LLCs operating Erewhon markets in Los Angeles. As a condition of his employment, he signed an arbitration agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. Gonzalez later filed a class action lawsuit against all ten Nowhere entities, alleging various Labor Code violations. He claimed that all entities were his joint employers, sharing control over his employment conditions.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the motion to compel arbitration for Nowhere Santa Monica but denied it for the other entities, finding no evidence that Gonzalez's claims against the non-signatory entities were intertwined with his claims against Nowhere Santa Monica. Gonzalez then dismissed his complaint against Nowhere Santa Monica, and the other entities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Gonzalez was equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration with the non-Santa Monica entities because his claims against them were intimately founded in and intertwined with his employment agreement with Nowhere Santa Monica. The court reasoned that Gonzalez's joint employer theory inherently linked his claims to the obligations under the employment agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. Therefore, it would be unfair for Gonzalez to claim joint employment for liability purposes while denying the arbitration agreement's applicability.The appellate court reversed the lower court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration for the non-Santa Monica entities, concluding that all of Gonzalez's claims should be arbitrated. View "Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC" on Justia Law

Ashley Howell, a temporary pre-licensed psychiatric technician, was employed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) from January 2, 2020, to January 24, 2020. Howell was terminated after DSH discovered she was on medical leave from her previous job due to a 2017 sexual assault, which she did not disclose during her pre-employment health screening. Howell filed a lawsuit against DSH, claiming mental and physical disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).The Napa County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of DSH on Howell’s claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process. Howell dismissed her claim for failure to prevent discrimination. The jury found in favor of Howell on her mental disability discrimination claim, awarding her $36,751.25 in lost earnings and health insurance benefits but nothing for pain and suffering. The court denied Howell’s motion for a new trial on non-economic damages and granted DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, striking the award for lost health insurance benefits. Howell was awarded $135,102 in attorney fees and costs but did not receive a ruling on her request for prejudgment interest.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny Howell’s motion for a new trial and to grant DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court found that Howell did not provide evidence of out-of-pocket expenses for lost health insurance benefits. The court also upheld the trial court’s award of $135,102 in attorney fees and costs, finding Howell’s request for $1.75 million to be unreasonable. However, the appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to address Howell’s request for prejudgment interest. View "Howell v. State Dept. of State Hospitals" on Justia Law

Stephen Lowery, a heavy equipment operator in the logging industry, filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer, Galen Kuykendall Logging, and its surety, Associated Loggers Exchange. Lowery claimed that his work caused a new occupational disease at the L3-4 level of his spine, distinct from his previous L5-S1 injury. Kuykendall Logging argued that Lowery's L3-4 condition was a continuation of his prior degenerative disease, which began in 1992.The Idaho Industrial Commission initially found that Lowery failed to prove his L3-4 injury resulted from an accident but concluded it was a compensable occupational disease. The Commission determined that Lowery's L3-4 condition arose independently from his previous L5-S1 issues and was aggravated by his work as a shovel logger. The Commission awarded Lowery medical and time loss benefits but denied permanent partial impairment or disability benefits. Kuykendall Logging filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that Lowery's occupational disease manifested while he was employed by another company, Evergreen Timber.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Commission's decision. The Court held that the Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including expert opinions that Lowery's L3-4 condition was a new occupational disease caused by his work. The Court also agreed that Lowery's occupational disease manifested on or after June 19, 2019, while he was employed by Kuykendall Logging. The Court found that Lowery complied with the notice and limitation requirements and that the Nelson doctrine did not preclude his recovery. Finally, the Court held that the Commission did not abuse its discretion by retaining jurisdiction and holding a second hearing to determine Lowery's last injurious exposure. View "Lowery v. Kuykendall" on Justia Law

The City of Great Falls unilaterally revised its drug and alcohol policy in 2019, expanding the scope of employees subject to random testing and imposing stricter penalties without negotiating with the affected labor unions. The unions filed unfair labor practice complaints, alleging that the City's actions violated the Montana Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act (MPECBA). The Montana Board of Personnel Appeals (MBPA) consolidated the complaints and referred them to a hearing examiner, who ruled in favor of the unions, concluding that the City's unilateral policy changes constituted unfair labor practices.The City did not file exceptions to the hearing examiner's proposed decision, which became the final agency decision by default. Instead, the City petitioned for judicial review, arguing that the hearing examiner's decision involved purely legal questions that should be reviewed by the court. The District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, dismissed the petition, citing the City's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not seeking final agency review.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that the City's failure to exhaust the final agency review remedy provided by MPECBA and the Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) precluded judicial review. The Court clarified that there is no jurisprudential exception to the exhaustion requirement for purely legal or constitutional questions in the context of MAPA contested case proceedings. The City's petition for judicial review was thus correctly denied and dismissed. View "Great Falls v. Assoc. of Firefighters" on Justia Law

The case involves Sunder Energy, LLC (Sunder), a solar sales dealer, and its former employee, Tyler Jackson, along with several other defendants. Sunder sought to enforce restrictive covenants against Jackson, who had joined a competitor, Solar Pros LLC, and allegedly recruited Sunder employees to the new company. The restrictive covenants were part of Sunder's operating agreement, which Jackson signed without negotiation or full understanding of its terms.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied Sunder's motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce the restrictive covenants. The court found the covenants unenforceable for two reasons: they originated from an egregious breach of fiduciary duty by Sunder's principals, and they were facially unreasonable. The court also declined to "blue pencil" the covenants to make them reasonable, citing the overbroad and oppressive nature of the restrictions. Additionally, the court ruled that Utah law governed Sunder's tortious interference claim against Jackson's new employers, which effectively dismissed that claim under Utah law.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Chancery's decision in part and reversed it in part. The Supreme Court agreed that the Court of Chancery did not abuse its discretion in refusing to blue pencil the restrictive covenants, given the lack of negotiation, minimal consideration, and the overbroad nature of the covenants. The Supreme Court also upheld the application of Utah law to the tortious interference claim. However, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's ruling that the operating agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law, stating that such a determination exceeded the scope of the preliminary injunction stage and should await a complete factual record. View "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Ali Bahreman, a flight attendant for Allegiant Air, challenged the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Allegiant and the Transport Workers Union (Union). The CBA required employees to either pay union dues or agency fees to maintain seniority-based bidding privileges for work schedules. Bahreman chose not to pay any fees and subsequently lost his bidding privileges. He argued that this arrangement violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by coercing employees to join the Union, deviating from the employment-termination remedy, and breaching the Union's duty of fair representation.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Allegiant and the Union. The court found that the CBA did not violate the RLA's anti-coercion provision, as it did not induce employees to join the Union. The court also held that the RLA does not prohibit collective bargaining agreements with terms other than those explicitly permitted by the Act. Additionally, the court determined that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation, as it enforced the CBA equally among all members of the bargaining unit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the RLA does not prohibit a collective bargaining agreement that conditions seniority-based bidding privileges on the payment of union dues or agency fees. The court found that the CBA did not induce union membership, as it treated union members and nonmembers alike regarding payment requirements. The court also concluded that the CBA's terms were permissible under the RLA and that the Union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in enforcing the agreement. View "Bahreman v. Allegiant Air, LLC" on Justia Law

Karl Hansen sued Tesla, Inc., its CEO Elon Musk, and U.S. Security Associates (USSA), alleging retaliation for reporting misconduct at Tesla. Hansen, initially hired by Tesla, was later employed by USSA. He reported thefts, narcotics trafficking, and improper contracts at Tesla, and filed a report with the SEC. After Musk saw Hansen at the Gigafactory and demanded his removal, USSA reassigned Hansen, which he claimed was retaliatory.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada ordered most of Hansen’s claims to arbitration, except his Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) claim. The arbitrator dismissed Hansen’s non-SOX claims, finding no contractual right to work at the Gigafactory and no reasonable belief of securities law violations. The district court confirmed the arbitration award and dismissed Hansen’s SOX claim, holding that the arbitrator’s findings precluded relitigation of issues essential to the SOX claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that while an arbitrator’s decision cannot preclude a SOX claim, a confirmed arbitral award can preclude relitigation of issues underlying such a claim. The court found that the arbitrator’s decision, which concluded Hansen had no reasonable belief of securities law violations, precluded his SOX claim. The court also held that the arbitrator’s findings on Hansen’s state law claims had a preclusive effect, as they were confirmed by the district court. Thus, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Hansen’s complaint. View "Hansen v. Musk" on Justia Law

Participants in Deloitte LLP’s 401(k) retirement plan filed a class action lawsuit against the plan fiduciaries, alleging that they breached their fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by allowing excessive administrative and recordkeeping fees. The plaintiffs claimed that the fees were higher than those of comparable plans and that the fiduciaries failed to obtain lower fees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the fees were excessive relative to the services provided. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint, deeming it futile as the proposed amendments did not cure the deficiencies in the original complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient factual allegations to support a plausible inference that the defendants breached their duty of prudence. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not adequately compare the services provided by the plan to those of the comparator plans, nor did they provide context to show that the fees were excessive. The court also upheld the dismissal of the derivative claim for failure to monitor, as it was dependent on the primary claim of breach of fiduciary duty. View "Singh v. Deloitte LLP" on Justia Law