Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an employee in Nevada worked for a large retailer that required workers to undergo COVID-19 testing before each shift, following state emergency orders and workplace safety recommendations. The company did not pay employees for the time spent on these pre-shift tests. The employee filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of Nevada’s wage-hour statutes and the state constitution, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage, overtime, and timely payment upon termination.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, which had argued that the time spent on COVID-19 testing was not compensable “work” under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA). The district court held that Nevada law had not incorporated the PPA, and thus the pre-shift screenings were compensable. The court then certified a question to the Supreme Court of Nevada, asking whether Nevada law incorporates the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the certified question and determined that Nevada’s wage-hour statutes do not incorporate the PPA’s broad exceptions to compensable work. The court found that Nevada law provides only narrow, specific exceptions to work compensation, unlike the PPA’s general exclusions for preliminary and postliminary activities. The court concluded that the Nevada Legislature did not intend to adopt the PPA’s exceptions, as reflected in the statutory language and legislative history. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question in the negative, holding that Nevada’s wage-hour laws do not incorporate the PPA’s exceptions to compensable work. View "AMAZON.COM SERVS., LLC VS. MALLOY" on Justia Law

A physician employed jointly by a Kansas hospital and its parent health system alleged that he was fired and later reported to the state medical licensing board in retaliation for reporting another doctor’s alleged sexual harassment of nurses. The physician had served in various roles at the hospital, including as Chief Medical Officer, and had made a formal complaint about a colleague’s conduct. After an internal investigation into an unrelated anonymous complaint about the physician’s own conduct, the hospital terminated his employment and subsequently referred several of his cases for outside peer review, which led to reports being filed with the state licensing board.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to the hospital and health system on the physician’s Title VII retaliation claims, finding that he could not show the reasons for his termination or the reports to the licensing board were pretextual. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims. The physician appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the physician presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the hospital’s internal investigation and subsequent actions were motivated by retaliatory animus, particularly under a “cat’s paw” theory, where biased subordinates influenced the ultimate decisionmakers. The court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the stated reasons for termination and reporting were pretextual, including evidence of disparate treatment and an unfair investigation. The Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on both Title VII retaliation claims and remanded for further proceedings. It also directed the district court to reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "Byrnes v. St. Catherine Hospital" on Justia Law

An employee began working at a foundry in Minnesota and, after developing back problems, was placed on a lifting restriction by her doctor. She informed her employer of this restriction, but the employer terminated her employment without attempting to provide accommodations. The employee then applied for unemployment benefits, prompting the employer to complete a questionnaire for the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) regarding her termination and disability. In the questionnaire, the employer indicated it had not tried to accommodate her condition.The employee subsequently filed a lawsuit under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. During discovery, the employer sought to exclude the DEED questionnaire from evidence at trial, arguing it was absolutely privileged under Minnesota Statutes section 268.19, subdivision 2(c). The District Court agreed and excluded the document, reasoning that information created solely for unemployment insurance purposes was inadmissible in other civil proceedings. After a bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of the employer and dismissed the employee’s claims. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the questionnaire was absolutely privileged and inadmissible.The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed the case to determine whether section 268.19, subdivision 2(c), bars admission of such documents in civil cases. The court held that the phrase “absolutely privileged” in the statute provides immunity from liability for information submitted to DEED, but does not create a general rule of inadmissibility for such evidence in unrelated civil proceedings. Because the employee’s discrimination claim was not based on the content of the DEED questionnaire, its exclusion was erroneous. However, the court found the error was not prejudicial, as the excluded evidence was cumulative of other admitted evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, but on different grounds. View "McBee vs. Team Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Two former employees of the University of California, after leaving their positions, delayed applying for retirement benefits under the University of California Retirement Plan (the Plan) until several years after reaching the normal retirement age of 60. When they eventually applied, both requested retroactive monthly retirement payments dating back to when they first became eligible. The Regents of the University of California denied these requests, interpreting the Plan to provide benefits only from the date of application forward. The plaintiffs, representing a class of similarly situated former employees, argued that the Plan entitled them to retroactive benefits or, alternatively, that The Regents breached a fiduciary duty by failing to inform them that retroactive benefits were unavailable.The Superior Court of Alameda County granted summary adjudication to The Regents on the breach of contract claim, finding that the Plan did not provide for retroactive monthly benefits prior to a member’s application. The court later held a bench trial on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, ultimately concluding that The Regents had not breached its duty to inform members about their retirement options, as the Plan documents and related communications were sufficient to fully and fairly inform a reasonable plan beneficiary.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that the Plan’s language unambiguously requires a member to apply for retirement benefits before those benefits become payable, and that retroactive monthly benefits are not available for periods before an application is filed. The court also affirmed that The Regents met its fiduciary duty of disclosure by providing adequate information about the Plan and its options. The judgment in favor of The Regents was affirmed. View "Mass v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

North Mountain Foothills Apartments (NMFA), a company managing a large apartment complex in Phoenix, Arizona, hired Jasper Press as a maintenance technician during a period of increased workload due to a heatwave. Press discussed his compensation and the poor conditions at the complex with several coworkers. Management became aware that other employees knew about Press’s pay and housing benefits, leading to a meeting where Press was reprimanded for these discussions and told not to talk about pest issues with residents. The day after this meeting, Press was terminated, allegedly for failing to complete work orders. Press filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging unfair labor practices.An administrative law judge held an evidentiary hearing and found that NMFA violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating Press about his wage discussions, issuing overly broad directives restricting such discussions, threatening reprisals, and discharging Press for engaging in protected activities. The NLRB adopted these findings and ordered remedies including reinstatement and back pay for Press. NMFA appealed, raising for the first time constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure and process, and also contested the Board’s factual findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to consider NMFA’s unexhausted constitutional claims because such structural challenges are not suited to agency resolution. The court rejected NMFA’s Article II removal protection challenge for lack of demonstrated harm, found no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in NLRB proceedings, and held that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions within the NLRB does not violate due process. On the merits, the court found substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that Press was discharged for protected activity and granted enforcement of the NLRB’s order. View "NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. NORTH MOUNTAIN FOOTHILLS APARTMENTS, LLC" on Justia Law

A physician specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation was employed by a medical practice under a three-year contract that anticipated partnership if not terminated. After patient and staff complaints about her conduct, the practice proposed a new one-year contract without a partnership track, which she refused to sign. She was then terminated with 90 days’ notice. The physician alleged that her termination was due to age and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation for stating her intent to file an EEOC complaint, and also brought a breach of contract claim.After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The District Judge reviewed the report and recommendation (R&R) only for clear error, concluding that the physician’s objections were improper because they repeated arguments made before the Magistrate Judge, and adopted the R&R in full. The physician appealed, arguing that her objections were timely and specific, and that the District Judge should have conducted de novo review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the District Court erred in applying only clear error review, as the physician’s objections were proper and required de novo review. However, the appellate court found this error harmless because it reviews summary judgment decisions de novo. On its own review, the Second Circuit concluded that the physician failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact on her preserved claims of sex discrimination, aiding and abetting discrimination, and retaliation. The court also found that her age discrimination and breach of contract claims were not preserved for appellate review. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants. View "Nambiar v. The Central Orthopedic Group, LLP" on Justia Law

Giovanni Irizarry Sierra worked as an Attorney Advisor for the Social Security Administration (SSA) in Puerto Rico and was terminated in March 2019 for unsatisfactory performance. He subsequently filed a complaint with the SSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (OCREO), alleging that his termination was the result of discrimination and retaliation. The OCREO reorganized his allegations, dismissing one as untimely and bifurcating the remainder into pre-termination and termination discrimination claims. The termination claim was treated as a “mixed case” because it involved both discrimination and an adverse personnel action.After receiving a report of investigation, Irizarry requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ dismissed the termination claim for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that mixed cases must proceed through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), not the EEOC. Irizarry then appealed his termination claim to the MSPB, which sustained his removal and notified him that he had thirty days from the final decision to seek judicial review in federal district court. Irizarry did not file within that period. Later, the OCREO erroneously issued a Final Agency Decision (FAD) on the termination claim, which was subsequently rescinded.Irizarry filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, relying on the rescinded FAD. The SSA moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint was untimely and the FAD was issued in error. The district court granted the motion, finding the claims time-barred and rejecting Irizarry’s arguments for equitable tolling and estoppel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Irizarry’s claim was untimely because he failed to file within thirty days of the MSPB’s final decision, and equitable relief was not warranted. View "Irizarry Sierra v. Bisignano" on Justia Law

In 2024, Minnesota enacted a law that revised the criteria for classifying independent contractors in the construction industry, expanding a previous nine-part test to a fourteen-part test. Several construction industry organizations and a general contractor challenged the law, arguing that certain provisions were unconstitutionally vague and that the civil penalties authorized by the statute violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiffs specifically objected to requirements regarding written contracts, invoicing, expense responsibility, and profit or loss realization, as well as the potential for significant civil penalties for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. The plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law, as they alleged specific conduct targeted by the statute and faced a credible threat of enforcement. However, the court concluded that the challenged statutory terms were sufficiently clear for people of ordinary intelligence and did not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court also determined that the plaintiffs’ excessive fines claim was premature, as no penalties had yet been imposed and Minnesota law requires a proportionality analysis before penalties are assessed. Because the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the court found no basis for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Blissenbach" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was employed as a senior director of finance at a data management software company, which later rebranded following a merger. Initially hired full time, the plaintiff’s position was later reduced to part time with a corresponding salary adjustment. Around this time, the plaintiff and the company entered into a retention bonus agreement, which provided for two bonus payments if the plaintiff remained employed and in good performance standing, with no reduction in work schedule, through two specified dates. The agreement also required the plaintiff to return the bonus if he left voluntarily or was terminated for cause before those dates. The plaintiff remained employed through both retention dates and received both bonus payments, though the second payment was made eight days after his termination due to a reduction in force.The plaintiff filed suit in the Concord Division of the District Court Department, asserting, among other claims, that the company violated the Massachusetts Wage Act by failing to pay the second retention bonus on his last day of employment. Both parties moved for summary judgment, which were denied without explanation. Upon reconsideration, a different District Court judge entered judgment for the defendants, finding that the retention bonus was not a “wage” under the Wage Act because it was contingent compensation. The Appellate Division of the District Court Department affirmed this decision, and the plaintiff sought further review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted direct appellate review. It held that retention bonus payments conditioned on continued employment and other requirements are not “wages” under the Wage Act, but rather constitute additional, contingent compensation. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the Wage Act did not apply to the retention bonus payments at issue. View "Nunez v. Syncsort Incorporated" on Justia Law

A middle school math teacher employed by a Minneapolis public school was injured while playing basketball with students during an afterschool practice. The teacher participated in the activity to strengthen relationships with students, which was encouraged by the school’s administration and reflected in the school’s mission and teacher evaluation standards. The injury, a ruptured ACL, occurred approximately 30 minutes after the official end of the teacher’s workday, at the school gym, and required surgery and time off work. The teacher sought workers’ compensation benefits, but the self-insured school district denied liability, arguing the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment and was excluded under a statutory provision for injuries incurred during voluntary employer-sponsored recreational programs.After an administrative hearing, a workers’ compensation judge found the injury compensable, concluding it arose out of and in the course of employment, and that the statutory exclusion for voluntary recreational programs did not apply because the activity was for the benefit of students, not employees. The school district appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA), which affirmed the compensation judge’s decision, agreeing that the exclusion did not bar the claim and that the injury occurred in the course of employment.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the teacher’s injury occurred “in the course of” employment under Minnesota Statutes section 176.021, subdivision 1, because the injury happened at the workplace, within a reasonable time after the workday, and during an employment-related activity. The Court further held that the exclusion in section 176.021, subdivision 9, applies only to voluntary employer-sponsored recreational programs that are for the benefit of employees, not students. The Supreme Court affirmed the WCCA’s decision. View "Lindsay vs. Minneapolis Public School District (SSD1)" on Justia Law