Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

A group of Massachusetts registered voters challenged the Attorney General's certification of Initiative Petition 23-12, which proposed "a Law Requiring the Full Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers with Tips on Top." The plaintiffs argued that the petition violated the requirement under art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution that initiative petitions contain only related or mutually dependent subjects. The petition proposed two changes: first, it would require employers to pay the full minimum wage to tipped employees, and second, it would permit tip pooling among both tipped and non-tipped employees.The plaintiffs commenced this action in the county court, claiming that the Attorney General's certification of the petition was in error because the petition did not contain only related or mutually dependent subjects. The single justice reserved and reported the case to the full court.The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk affirmed the Attorney General's certification of the petition as in proper form to be submitted to voters. The court concluded that the petition, which would require that employers pay the full minimum wage to tipped employees and would permit tip pooling among both tipped and non-tipped employees, forms a "unified statement of public policy on which the voters can fairly vote 'yes' or 'no.'" The court found that the two provisions of the petition were closely related and shared a well-defined common purpose related to ending the existing compensation system common to tipped industries. View "Clark v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Several Starbucks employees in Memphis, Tennessee, announced plans to unionize and invited a local news crew to their store after hours to promote their efforts. Starbucks fired multiple employees involved in the media event for violating company policy. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed an administrative complaint against Starbucks, alleging unfair labor practices. The Board's regional Director then filed a petition under §10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act seeking a preliminary injunction that would require Starbucks to reinstate the fired employees during the administrative proceedings. The District Court granted the injunction, applying a two-part test that asks whether there is reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred and whether injunctive relief is just and proper. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Sixth Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court held that when considering the NLRB’s request for a preliminary injunction under §10(j), district courts must apply the traditional four-factor test articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This test requires a plaintiff to make a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. The Court found that nothing in §10(j) displaces the presumption that these traditional principles govern. The Court rejected the Board's argument that statutory context requires district courts to apply the traditional criteria in a less exacting way. The Court concluded that the reasonable-cause standard substantively lowers the bar for securing a preliminary injunction by requiring courts to yield to the Board’s preliminary view of the facts, law, and equities. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney" on Justia Law

Leroy Johnson, a supervisor at Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (Wabtec), was terminated after failing to fully disclose his contact with a COVID-19 positive individual, violating the company's COVID-19 protocols and a Last Chance Agreement he had signed. Johnson, the only salaried black employee at the plant, sued Wabtec for wrongful termination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wabtec.The district court's decision was based on the conclusion that Johnson had not established a prima facie case of discrimination. Johnson had argued that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated white employees, but the court found that the employees he cited were not similarly situated as they were not terminated for misconduct. The court also found that Johnson's failure to fully disclose his potential COVID-19 exposure constituted a safety concern and misconduct, which was grounds for termination under the Last Chance Agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Johnson had not established a prima facie case of discrimination and that his termination was due to his misconduct, not his race or age. The court also noted that Johnson had waived his ADEA claim by failing to address its merits in his opening brief. View "Johnson v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation" on Justia Law

The case involves Nikkolai Anderson, a former restaurant host, who sued her employer, Mott Street, for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation after her termination. Anderson's tenure at Mott Street was marked by sub-par performance and inappropriate behavior, including negative interactions with guests and non-compliance with restaurant rules. Mott Street received several negative customer reviews about a rude host, which were traced back to Anderson. After her termination, Anderson filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois state law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Mott Street. The court found Anderson's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress barred by the statute of limitations and concluded she had not raised triable issues of fact as to her Title VII allegations. Anderson appealed the district court’s decision as to her Title VII claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found no triable issue of fact on the third element of a hostile work environment claim—that the conduct was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment. The court also found that Anderson could not identify an appropriate comparator nor raise a triable issue of fact as to Mott Street’s stated reasons for firing her, thus her sex discrimination claim could not proceed to trial. Lastly, the court found no causal connection between Anderson's alleged protected activity and her firing, nor could she produce evidence showing that Mott Street’s stated reason for firing her was pretextual. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on her retaliation claim. View "Anderson v. Mott Street" on Justia Law

The case involves Ampler Burgers Ohio LLC, doing business as Burger King, and its employees Lesley McLaughlin, Sheila Spaulding, and Teresa Stephens (collectively, the Petitioners) against Kenna Bishop (the Respondent). The dispute arose from allegations of sexual harassment and other violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act during Bishop's employment at a Burger King franchise. As part of her hiring process, Bishop signed an arbitration agreement with Ampler Burgers LLC, an affiliated company of her actual employer, Ampler Burgers Ohio LLC. The agreement required all disputes related to her employment to be arbitrated.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County denied the Petitioners' motion to compel arbitration, citing five reasons: Ampler Burgers Ohio LLC was not a party to the arbitration agreement; the agreement lacked mutual consideration; the dispute was not subject to the agreement; the agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable; and the Petitioners had waived their right to arbitration.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the lower court's decision. The court found that the arbitration agreement could be enforced by Ampler Burgers Ohio LLC as it was an affiliated entity of the signatory, Ampler Burgers LLC. The court also determined that the agreement was supported by mutual consideration and covered the disputes raised in the complaint. The court disagreed with the lower court's finding of unconscionability, stating that the agreement's requirements applied equally to all parties. Finally, the court concluded that the Petitioners did not waive their right to arbitration by engaging in limited litigation activities prior to filing the motion to compel arbitration. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "Ampler Burgers Ohio LLC v. Bishop" on Justia Law

The case involves Amazon.com Services LLC and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB alleged that Amazon committed an unfair labor practice by discharging an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity. While the charge was pending before the Board, the Board sought temporary injunctive relief, including the employee’s reinstatement. The district court found "reasonable cause" to believe Amazon committed an unfair labor practice in terminating the employee. However, it concluded that ordering Amazon to cease and desist from committing certain violations of the Act was "just and proper," but that ordering Amazon to reinstate the employee was not.The district court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appellate court found that the district court did not adequately explain why the cease-and-desist order was just and proper, particularly in light of its conclusion that the employee’s reinstatement was not. Therefore, the injunction was vacated in part. The court noted that the district court's lack of explanation for granting the cease-and-desist order, coupled with its explicit, undisputed findings in rejecting the request to order the employee's reinstatement, cast serious doubt on the propriety of the cease-and-desist order. View "Poor v. Amazon.com Services LLC" on Justia Law

An employee of the Department of Public Health (DPH), Juanita Estrada, filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that the DPH retaliated against her for a whistleblower disclosure. Estrada's job duties included reviewing the qualifications of individuals appointed as municipal directors of health. She approved an appointment without verifying the individual's credentials, which were later found to be false. After notifying her supervisor, the individual was removed from the position. Estrada then repeated the error with another appointment and received a letter of reprimand. She subsequently received another reprimand, multiple unsatisfactory performance appraisals, and was demoted. Estrada filed grievances challenging these actions but did not raise a whistleblower retaliation claim. All grievances were denied. She then filed a whistleblower retaliation claim with the commission.The trial court concluded that the commission lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada’s whistleblower complaint, that Estrada had not made a protected whistleblower disclosure, and that she had failed to establish a causal connection between any alleged whistleblower disclosure and the alleged retaliation. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the merits in favor of the department. The commission appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.The Supreme Court held that the commission had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Estrada’s whistleblower retaliation claim. The court also held that an employee is entitled to whistleblower protection under the statute for reporting his or her own error. However, the court concluded that Estrada had failed to prove that the department’s adverse personnel actions were caused by Estrada’s reporting of her errors rather than the errors themselves. The judgment of the Appellate Court was affirmed. View "Dept. of Public Health v. Estrada" on Justia Law

Carlos Ramirez, an employee, filed a class action lawsuit against his former employer, Golden Queen Mining Company, alleging various violations of the Labor Code and unfair competition. The employer moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied the motion, stating that the employer failed to demonstrate the existence of an executed arbitration agreement. The employer appealed, arguing that it had made a prima facie showing that a written arbitration agreement existed and that Ramirez’s statements that he did not recall being presented with or signing an arbitration agreement were insufficient to rebut its initial showing.The Superior Court of Kern County had initially denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the employer failed to demonstrate the existence of an executed arbitration agreement. The court found that the employer's evidence, which included an unsigned arbitration agreement and a handbook acknowledgement purportedly signed by Ramirez, was insufficient to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court concluded that Ramirez did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the employer’s initial showing that an arbitration agreement existed. The court found that Ramirez's failure to recall signing the document did not create a factual dispute about the signature’s authenticity. The court also noted that Ramirez’s declaration did not state whether he had reviewed the arbitration agreement or other documents purportedly signed by him, nor did it address whether he recalled signing the handbook acknowledgement, which included a statement that he agreed to the terms of the arbitration agreement. The court therefore reversed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings to address Ramirez’s unconscionability defense. View "Ramirez v. Golden Queen Mining Co." on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident where an employee, Leonard Bernstein, shot his co-worker, Christopher Bayouth, at their workplace, Morgan Stanley's Oklahoma City branch. Bernstein, who was suffering from mental deficiencies, believed he was acting in self-defense due to his delusional state. After the shooting, Bayouth filed a lawsuit against Bernstein for willful and intentional acts, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bernstein passed away, and his estate was substituted as the defendant. The estate argued that Bayouth's exclusive remedy was through the Administrative Workers' Compensation Act (AWCA), as he had received workers' compensation benefits.The District Court of Oklahoma County granted summary judgment in favor of Bernstein's estate, ruling that the exclusive remedy provision of the AWCA protected Bernstein regardless of whether he was acting within his course and scope of employment when the shooting occurred. The court reasoned that the focus was on whether the injured employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident, not the employee who caused the injury.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma disagreed with the lower court's interpretation. The court held that for the exclusive remedy provision under the AWCA to apply, the employee who injures another employee must be acting within the course and scope of their employment when the incident occurs. The court found that the parties disputed whether Bernstein was acting within the course and scope of his employment when he shot Bayouth. Therefore, the court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bayouth v. Dewberry" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a former underground coal miner, Randy Brown, who contracted occupational pneumoconiosis (OP) due to his exposure to coal dust. In 2016, he was granted a 30% permanent partial disability (PPD) award for his OP. In 2018, Brown sought an increase in his award, claiming his condition had worsened. The Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board (OP Board) examined Brown and determined that he had an additional 20% impairment, bringing his total impairment rating to 50%. The claims administrator granted an additional 20% PPD award, which was protested by Brown's employer, Rockspring Development, Inc.Rockspring's protest was heard by the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges, which affirmed the claims administrator’s decision. Rockspring then appealed to the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, which also affirmed the decision. During the pendency of the claim process, Brown underwent a bilateral lung transplant. Post-transplant, Brown’s pulmonary function testing and x-ray reports showed no evidence of OP. Rockspring argued that the Board of Review was clearly wrong in affirming the additional 20% PPD award because Brown no longer had OP or any pulmonary impairment.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia disagreed with Rockspring's argument. The court noted that the relevant statutes do not indicate whether the decisionmaker should consider the pulmonary function of the pre-transplant lungs or the function of the post-transplant lungs when the transplant occurred during the pendency of the claim proceedings. Given the unique circumstances of the case and the deference afforded to the Board of Review, the court affirmed the Board of Review’s decision granting Brown an additional 20% PPD award. View "Rockspring Development, Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law