Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a class of current and former Home Depot employees who alleged that Home Depot failed to prudently manage its 401(k) retirement plan, resulting in excessive fees and subpar returns. The plaintiffs argued that Home Depot did not adequately monitor the fees charged by the plan’s financial advisor and failed to prudently evaluate four specific investment options, leading to financial losses for the plan participants.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Home Depot had complied with its duty of prudence in monitoring plan fees and three of the four challenged funds. However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of proving loss causation for any of their claims. The court also found no genuine dispute regarding the prudence of Home Depot’s monitoring process for the Stephens Fund and ruled that the plaintiffs had forfeited their requests for equitable relief by not arguing them at the summary judgment stage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving loss causation in ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that the fees charged by the financial advisors were objectively imprudent, given the size and complexity of Home Depot’s plan. The court also determined that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the four challenged funds were objectively imprudent investments. Additionally, the court agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs had forfeited their claims for equitable relief by not raising them at the summary judgment stage. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot. View "Pizarro v. The Home Depot, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of employees sued their employer, Metalcraft of Mayville, for not paying them for time spent working just before or after their shifts. The employees alleged that Metalcraft's timekeeping system, which allowed clocking in up to 15 minutes before and after shifts, did not accurately reflect the time they worked. They claimed that adjustments to their clock-in times were made even when they performed compensable work during these periods.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin decertified the collective action in April 2020, leading to 24 additional cases being filed and consolidated. Nine cases were dismissed for various reasons, and the district court granted summary judgment to Metalcraft in the four selected cases, ruling that the employees' evidence was speculative and insufficient. The remaining 12 plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their cases, acknowledging that the summary judgment ruling likely determined their claims. Metalcraft then moved for sanctions against the plaintiffs' counsel, arguing that the lawsuits were frivolous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the district court's denial of sanctions. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had enough factual and legal support for their claims to avoid sanctions. The court noted that FLSA claims can be based on reconstructed memories when an employer's record-keeping is inadequate. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' legal arguments regarding the Portal-to-Portal Act and the de minimis doctrine were not baseless. The appellate court emphasized that the standard for summary judgment is different from the standard for Rule 11 sanctions and that the plaintiffs' failure to win on summary judgment did not make their cases frivolous. Therefore, the denial of sanctions was affirmed. View "Farina v. Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc." on Justia Law

The Acting Secretary of Labor filed a lawsuit against F.W. Webb Company, alleging that the company misclassified its Inside Sales Representatives (ISRs) as exempt administrative employees, thereby violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime and recordkeeping requirements. Webb, a wholesale distributor of engineering and construction products, employed over 600 ISRs who were responsible for selling products to various customers. The ISRs were classified as exempt from FLSA overtime requirements, despite some working over forty hours a week without receiving overtime pay. The ISRs' duties included interacting with customers, providing quotes, and managing orders, but they did not have managerial responsibilities over other employees.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, finding that the ISRs' primary duty was to make sales, which is directly related to Webb's core business purpose of selling products. The court concluded that the ISRs did not qualify for the administrative exemption under the FLSA because their primary duty was not related to the management or general business operations of Webb. Consequently, the court found that Webb violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime and maintain proper records for the ISRs.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the ISRs' primary duty was to sell Webb's products, which is directly related to the company's business purpose. The court held that the ISRs did not perform work directly related to the management or general business operations of Webb, and thus, did not qualify for the administrative exemption under the FLSA. The court emphasized that the ISRs' customer service and advisory roles were part of their sales duties and not separate administrative functions. View "Su v. F.W. Webb Company" on Justia Law

Ana Lilia Cardenas, a special education teacher, injured her knee at work, resulting in both a physical impairment to her knee and a secondary mental impairment. The Workers’ Compensation Judge awarded her permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits for her knee injury, limited to 150 weeks as per the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Act also limits the duration of PPD benefits for secondary mental impairments to the maximum period allowable for the initial physical impairment, which in this case was also 150 weeks.Cardenas appealed, arguing that this limitation violated the equal protection clause of the New Mexico Constitution. The New Mexico Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the Act’s provisions for secondary mental impairments were unconstitutional because they treated workers with mental impairments differently from those with subsequent physical impairments. The Court of Appeals noted that subsequent physical impairments are treated as separate injuries with their own benefit durations, unlike secondary mental impairments.The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine the constitutionality of the Act’s provisions. The Court held that the Act’s differential treatment of secondary mental impairments compared to subsequent physical impairments violated the equal protection clause. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny, given that mental disabilities are a sensitive class, and found that the employer failed to demonstrate that the disparate treatment was substantially related to an important governmental interest. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that the relevant sections of the Workers’ Compensation Act were unconstitutional. View "Aztec Municipal Schools v. Cardenas" on Justia Law

The case involves three Lyft drivers, Tina Turrieta, Brandon Olson, and Million Seifu, who each filed separate lawsuits under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) against Lyft, Inc. for alleged labor violations. Turrieta settled her case with Lyft, but before the settlement was approved, Olson and Seifu sought to intervene and object to the settlement, arguing it was unfair and that they had overlapping claims. The trial court denied their motions to intervene, approved the settlement, and later denied their motions to vacate the judgment.Olson and Seifu appealed the trial court's decisions. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings, holding that Olson and Seifu lacked standing to intervene or to challenge the settlement because they were not aggrieved by the judgment. The appellate court reasoned that PAGA actions are representative actions on behalf of the state, and thus, Olson and Seifu did not have a personal interest in the settlement of Turrieta’s PAGA claim.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that PAGA does not authorize one aggrieved employee to intervene in another employee’s PAGA action asserting overlapping claims. The Court reasoned that allowing such intervention would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme of PAGA, which provides for oversight of settlements by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and the courts, but does not mention intervention by other PAGA plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that the statutory language and legislative history indicate that the Legislature intended for the LWDA and the courts to ensure the fairness of PAGA settlements, not other PAGA plaintiffs.The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluding that Olson and Seifu did not have the right to intervene, object to, or move to vacate the judgment in Turrieta’s PAGA action. View "Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc." on Justia Law

Five corporate jet pilots worked for Sands Aviation, LLC and Las Vegas Sands Corp., earning between $125,000 and $160,000 annually. Their primary duties included ensuring the safety of passengers, crew, and aircraft, which involved complex decision-making and discretionary actions. The pilots were required to be on call for pop-up flights, typically scheduled 24 hours in advance, and had to respond to flight notifications within 30 minutes. Despite being on call, they engaged in various personal activities and secondary employment.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada held a bench trial and ruled in favor of Sands. The court found that the pilots were highly compensated employees performing primarily non-manual labor and making significant discretionary decisions, thus exempting them from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime requirements. Additionally, the court determined that the pilots' on-call time did not constitute work requiring overtime pay because they could freely engage in personal activities during this time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the pilots were exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements as highly compensated employees performing non-manual labor and making significant discretionary decisions. The court also held that the pilots' on-call time did not count as work for overtime purposes, as they were free to engage in personal activities and there was no agreement suggesting that on-call time was compensable. Thus, the pilots did not meet the 40-hour workweek threshold for overtime pay. View "KENNEDY V. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORPORATION" on Justia Law

Scott Lupia, a locomotive engineer for New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. (NJT), was injured when the air conditioning (A/C) unit in his cab malfunctioned, causing the temperature to rise to 114 degrees Fahrenheit. Despite notifying his supervisors, Lupia was instructed to operate the train, leading to his collapse from heat exhaustion and subsequent permanent injuries. Lupia filed a lawsuit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging that NJT violated the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) by failing to maintain the locomotive's parts and appurtenances, including the A/C unit, in safe operating condition.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied NJT's motion for summary judgment, holding that a temperature control system, including an A/C unit, is considered a "part and appurtenance" of a locomotive under the LIA. The court found sufficient evidence that NJT's failure to maintain the A/C unit in proper condition posed an unnecessary danger of personal injury. During the trial, the court allowed Lupia to introduce a report to impeach NJT’s witness and permitted arguments regarding noneconomic damages. The jury awarded Lupia significant damages for lost earnings and pain and suffering.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that a temperature control system is an integral part of a locomotive and that NJT was required to maintain the A/C unit in safe operating condition once it chose to use it as part of its temperature control system. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the District Court's evidentiary rulings and its decision to allow arguments on noneconomic damages. View "Lupia v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc." on Justia Law

Michael Shipton, a middle-aged man with Type 2 diabetes, worked as an underground gas mechanic for Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE). Due to his diabetes, he periodically missed work and was granted intermittent Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave in August 2017 and January 2018 for hypoglycemia. In April 2018, Shipton took two days off for severe foot pain caused by neuropathy, but BGE informed him that his FMLA certification only covered hypoglycemia. After submitting a new medical certification for neuropathy, BGE approved his request. However, in June 2018, BGE terminated Shipton, citing conflicting medical documentation.Shipton filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in June 2020, alleging FMLA interference and retaliation against BGE, Exelon Corporation, Exelon Business Services Company (EBSC), and several individual defendants. The defendants argued that Shipton was terminated based on an honest belief that he misused FMLA leave and that his claims were time-barred. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no evidence of willful FMLA violations to extend the statute of limitations and concluding that BGE had a legitimate reason for termination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Shipton failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his FMLA interference and retaliation claims. The court found that BGE had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination based on conflicting medical documentation and that Shipton did not provide sufficient evidence to show pretext. Additionally, the court upheld the summary judgment in favor of Exelon, EBSC, and the individual defendants, concluding they were not Shipton’s "employer" under the FMLA. View "Shipton v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company" on Justia Law

The case involves tanker-truck drivers employed by Ace Gathering, Inc., who transport crude oil solely within Texas. The drivers, known as Crude Haulers, collect crude oil from oil fields and deliver it to pipeline injection points. Although their routes are entirely within Texas, a significant portion of the crude oil they transport is ultimately destined for out-of-state refineries or export markets. The drivers claim they worked over forty hours a week without receiving overtime pay, alleging they were misclassified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime provisions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially denied Ace's motion for summary judgment, which argued that the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exempted the Crude Haulers from FLSA overtime pay. The district court found that Ace had no vested interest in the crude oil once it crossed state lines and that the volunteer-based interstate driving assignments created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the drivers' reasonable expectation of interstate travel. Upon reconsideration, the district court certified three questions for interlocutory appellate review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the Crude Haulers' transportation of crude oil within Texas constitutes transportation in "interstate or foreign commerce" under the MCA because the oil is ultimately bound for out-of-state destinations. The court noted that the intrastate transport of goods destined for out-of-state locations falls under the MCA's definition of interstate commerce. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. View "Escobedo v. Ace Gathering" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the constitutionality of "release time" provisions in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City of Phoenix and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2384. These provisions allow certain employees to be released from their regular duties, while still being paid by the City, to perform union activities. The plaintiffs, who are non-union employees, argued that these provisions violate their free-speech, free-association, and right-to-work rights, as well as the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment in favor of the City and the Union, finding that the release time provisions did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights because the City, not the employees, paid for the release time. The court also found that the provisions did not violate the Gift Clause, as they served a public purpose and were supported by adequate consideration. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the provisions did not violate the plaintiffs' rights and were supported by adequate consideration.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the release time provisions do not violate the free-speech, free-association, or right-to-work rights of the plaintiffs because the City pays for the release time. However, the Court found that the provisions violate the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution. The Court determined that the release time provisions do not provide adequate consideration to the City, as the benefits to the City are negligible compared to the substantial costs. Consequently, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion, reversed the Superior Court's decision, and remanded the case for the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the Gift Clause claim. View "GILMORE v. GALLEGO" on Justia Law