Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Christine Bube and Connie Hedrington, both registered nurses, worked for Aspirus, Inc., a non-profit hospital system. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Aspirus mandated that all employees receive the COVID vaccine, allowing exemptions for religious reasons. Bube and Hedrington applied for religious exemptions, citing their Catholic faith and beliefs about bodily integrity and health. Aspirus denied their requests and terminated their employment in December 2021.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed Bube and Hedrington’s Title VII claim, reasoning that their accommodation requests did not sufficiently tie their objections to specific religious beliefs or practices. The court concluded that their objections were primarily about personal autonomy and vaccine safety, rather than religious beliefs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that an employee seeks accommodation because of their religion when their request is plausibly based at least in part on some aspect of their religious belief or practice. Applying this standard, the court found that Bube’s and Hedrington’s requests were indeed based in part on their religious beliefs. The court emphasized that Title VII’s broad definition of religion requires a hands-off approach to defining religious exercise. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bube v. Aspirus Hospital, Inc" on Justia Law

In May 2019, the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety imposed a 44-hour suspension on Officer David Meinhardt, which was upheld by the City of Sunnyvale Personnel Board. Meinhardt challenged the suspension by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. On August 6, 2020, the court issued an order denying the petition. Subsequently, on September 25, 2020, a formal judgment was entered, and Meinhardt filed a notice of appeal on October 15, 2020.The Fourth Appellate District, Division One, dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the August 6 order was the final judgment from which Meinhardt should have appealed. The court reasoned that the order denied the petition in its entirety and did not contemplate further action, thus starting the 60-day period for filing an appeal.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to resolve the uncertainty about when the time to appeal starts in writ of administrative mandate proceedings. The court held that the time to appeal begins with the entry of a "judgment" or the service of notice of entry of "judgment," rather than with the filing of an "order" or other ruling. This decision was based on the plain language of relevant statutes and rules, which contemplate the entry of a "judgment," and the policy of providing clear jurisdictional deadlines to avoid inadvertent forfeiture of the right to appeal. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluding that Meinhardt's notice of appeal was timely filed within 60 days of the entry of the September 25 judgment. View "Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale" on Justia Law

Twanda Bailey, an African-American employee, sued the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, former District Attorney George Gascon, and the City and County of San Francisco for racial harassment and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Bailey alleged that a coworker called her the N-word, and after reporting the incident, the human resources manager obstructed her complaint, engaged in intimidating conduct, and threatened her.The San Francisco City and County Superior Court granted summary judgment for the City, finding that Bailey failed to make a prima facie case for her FEHA claims. The trial court concluded that a single racial slur by a coworker did not constitute severe or pervasive harassment and that Bailey did not suffer an adverse employment action. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and held that an isolated act of harassment, such as the use of an unambiguous racial epithet like the N-word, can be actionable if it is sufficiently severe under the totality of the circumstances. The Court emphasized that the severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position. The Court also held that a course of conduct that effectively withdraws an employee’s means of reporting and addressing racial harassment can constitute an adverse employment action. The Court found that there were triable issues of fact regarding both Bailey’s harassment and retaliation claims and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office" on Justia Law

Two healthcare workers, Megan Passarella and Sandra Dottenwhy, employed by Aspirus Health in Wisconsin, sought religious exemptions from the company's COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Passarella cited her Christian belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and expressed concerns about the vaccine's safety. Dottenwhy also referenced her Christian faith, stating that her body is a temple and expressing distrust in the vaccine's development and long-term effects. Both were denied exemptions and subsequently terminated.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed their Title VII claims, ruling that their objections were based on medical judgment rather than religious conviction. The court found that the plaintiffs did not articulate any religious belief that would prevent them from taking the vaccine if they believed it was safe.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that an employee's request for accommodation is based on religion if it is plausibly connected to their religious beliefs or practices, even if it also includes non-religious reasons. The court emphasized that Title VII's definition of religion is broad and includes all aspects of religious observance and practice. The court found that both Passarella's and Dottenwhy's exemption requests were at least partially based on their religious beliefs, making them sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the sincerity of the plaintiffs' beliefs and whether Aspirus could reasonably accommodate them without undue hardship. View "Dottenwhy v. Aspirus, Inc." on Justia Law

Rachel Spivack, an employee at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DAO), was subject to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The DAO denied her request for a religious exemption, leading to her termination. Spivack then sued the City of Philadelphia and District Attorney Lawrence Krasner, alleging that the mandate violated her constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the vaccine mandate was neutral and generally applicable, thus subject to rational basis review. The court found that the mandate was rationally related to the DAO’s interests in curtailing the spread of COVID-19, avoiding staffing shortages, and reducing the risk of death and serious illness among DAO staff and the public. The court also held that the mandate satisfied strict scrutiny as an alternative ruling. Spivack appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that there were disputes of material fact that needed to be resolved by a jury. Specifically, the court noted that it was unclear whether Spivack’s exemption request was evaluated under the August 2021 policy, which allowed for individualized, discretionary religious exemptions, or the January 2022 policy, which categorically denied religious exemptions. Additionally, the court found that comments made by Krasner during his deposition could be interpreted as showing hostility toward religious beliefs, which would undermine the neutrality of the policy.The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded the case for trial, instructing that a jury must resolve these factual disputes to determine the applicable standard of scrutiny. If the policy is found to be neutral and generally applicable, it would be subject to rational basis review. If not, it would be subject to strict scrutiny. View "Spivack v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Samuel Amos fell from the roof of a shop building he was helping David Tidwell construct on property owned by Travis and Tabitha Plambeck. Tidwell had promised to pay Amos for his work. Amos filed a workers’ compensation claim against Tidwell and the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Benefits Guaranty Fund for his injuries. Tidwell requested the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Board dismiss Amos’s claim, alleging he had not hired Amos. The Board found that Amos had an employment contract with Tidwell but determined Tidwell was not an “employer” under the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act, reasoning that the employment was based on friendship and thus fell within consumptive uses exempt from the Act’s coverage.The Alaska Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the Board’s decision, agreeing that Tidwell’s activities were consumptive rather than productive. The Commission also speculated that Amos’s work might fall under the statutory exemption for “harvest help and similar part-time or transient help,” although the Board had not made findings on this issue. Amos appealed, arguing that the Commission and the Board incorrectly construed the law and that there is no “buddy” exemption to the employer-employee relationship under the Act.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The Court held that the Commission erred by creating an implicit exemption for “buddies” and by applying the productive/consumptive distinction to Tidwell’s employment of Amos. The Court clarified that the productive/consumptive distinction applies only to householders and not to individuals like Tidwell who hire others for work on third-party properties. The Court also found that the Commission improperly speculated about the applicability of the statutory exemption for part-time or transient help without proper findings. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Amos v. Tidwell" on Justia Law

A group of non-convicted individuals detained in Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail filed a lawsuit against Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Alameda County, and Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern. The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay under California’s Labor Code for work performed without pay for Aramark while detained. The defendants moved to dismiss these claims, arguing that the plaintiffs' compensation was governed by the California Penal Code, which allows counties to pay prisoners at rates below minimum wage.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the minimum wage and overtime claims, holding that the California Penal Code did not preclude non-convicted detainees working for a private company from the protections of the Labor Code. The district court allowed the plaintiffs' claims to proceed, leading the defendants to file an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and certified a question to the California Supreme Court regarding whether non-convicted detainees working for a private company in county jails have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. The California Supreme Court responded that such detainees do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under Section 1194 of the California Labor Code. The court clarified that section 4019.3 of the California Penal Code applies broadly to all county inmates, including pretrial detainees, and does not depend on the identity of the employer.Based on the California Supreme Court's response, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' minimum wage and overtime claims. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims failed under the current law and reversed the district court's decision. View "RUELAS V. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA" on Justia Law

Paula Emerson, a former Cook County Corrections Officer, was terminated in 2019 after being on disability leave since 2012 due to anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Emerson claimed her termination was in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim in 2014 and a Title VII lawsuit against Cook County and its employees, which she lost. She alleged that the same attorneys represented the County in both her workers' compensation proceedings and the Title VII case, and discussed her cases with those responsible for her termination.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Emerson's initial complaint for failure to state a claim, allowing her to amend it. Emerson's amended complaint was also dismissed with prejudice for failing to cure deficiencies. The court found that filing a workers' compensation claim was not a protected activity under the ADA and that Emerson did not adequately allege that her workers' compensation claim caused her termination. Emerson's request for limited discovery was denied due to lack of specific allegations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that Emerson's complaint did not plausibly allege that her workers' compensation claim caused her termination, noting the five-year gap between the claim and her firing. The court also upheld the denial of Emerson's discovery request, deeming it speculative, and found no abuse of discretion in denying her Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, as she presented no new evidence or manifest error of law or fact. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Emerson v. Dart" on Justia Law

A Catholic priest, Andrew J. Syring, sued the Archdiocese of Omaha, alleging defamation, tortious interference with prospective employment, slander per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. His claims stemmed from the Archdiocese publishing his name on a list of clergy with substantiated claims of sexual misconduct and a subsequent phone conversation where a church official referenced this list when discussing Syring's potential employment as a hospital chaplain.The District Court for Cuming County granted summary judgment for the Archdiocese on Syring's defamation claim, finding it barred by Nebraska’s one-year statute of limitations. The court ruled that the initial publication of the list in 2018 started the limitations period, and subsequent updates to the list did not constitute republication. The court also granted summary judgment on Syring's intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, concluding that Syring failed to provide medical evidence of severe emotional distress.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the single publication rule applied to the Archdiocese's list, meaning the statute of limitations began with the initial publication. The court also found that the Archdiocese's conduct did not meet the high threshold for extreme and outrageous behavior required for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of Syring's claims for tortious interference, slander per se, and breach of fiduciary duty, citing the ministerial exception. This doctrine prevents courts from interfering with the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers, thus barring Syring's claims related to his employment and the Archdiocese's internal governance decisions. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, dismissing all of Syring's claims. View "Syring v. Archdiocese of Omaha" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the law firm Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner and its former associate, Edward Festeryga. Abraham Watkins terminated Festeryga’s employment after discovering that he attempted to take clients and firm files to a new firm. Abraham Watkins sued Festeryga in Texas state court for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract. Festeryga moved to dismiss the suit under Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute, the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which stayed the expedited discovery sought by Abraham Watkins. Despite agreeing to produce certain documents, Festeryga filed a notice of removal to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction as a Canadian citizen.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas remanded the case back to state court. The district court did not address whether Festeryga had shown diversity of citizenship but concluded that Festeryga waived his right to remove by participating in state court proceedings, specifically by filing a TCPA motion to dismiss. The district court found that this action demonstrated an intent to invoke the jurisdiction of the state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case to determine if it had appellate jurisdiction over the remand order. The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction, citing its precedent in In re Weaver, which held that waiver-based remand orders are jurisdictional under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and thus unappealable under § 1447(d). The court noted that although it disagreed with the reasoning in Weaver, it was bound by the rule of orderliness to follow the precedent. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga" on Justia Law