An overview of important court decisions affecting workplace rights. Updated weekly.
Select a court circuit from the map below or from this list.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont
Simmons v. N.Y. City Transit Authority (No. 08-4079)
Decision Date: August 3, 2009
In a dispute involving attorney's fees, district court judgment is vacated and remanded where the court erred in awarding attorney's fees to plaintiff's based on the prevailing hourly rates in the district where her counsel was based, rather than where the suit was litigated, as plaintiff did not satisfy the exception to the forum rule for attorney's fees.
Sousa v. Roque (No. 07-1892)
Decision Date: August 21, 2009
In an action by a public employee claiming that defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment for reporting workplace violence, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the speaker's motive is not dispositive of whether the speech is on a matter of public concern.
Halpert v. Manhattan Apts., Inc. (No. 07-4074)
Decision Date: September 10, 2009
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act action regarding a statement by a third party retained by defendant that plaintiff was too old for the position at issue, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where an employer may be held liable for discrimination by third parties, including independent contractors, that the employer authorizes to make hiring decisions on its behalf.
Seidemann v. Bowen (No. 08-3922)
Decision Date: October 15, 2009
In a First Amendment action alleging that a professor's union impermissibly charged plaintiff a pro rata share of expenses unrelated to the union's collective bargaining duties, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) a public-sector union's political activities aimed at securing a new contract may be chargeable to nonmembers if those activities are pertinent to the union's role as a collective bargaining representative; 2) nonmembers may be required to subsidize lobbying efforts undertaken by a "parent" union of the local public-sector union if the lobbying is related to collective bargaining and may ultimately inure to the benefit of local union members; 3) the district court erred in upholding the union's charges to nonmembers for (a) political activity undertaken to secure a new contract, (b) lobbying by the local union's state affiliate, (c) costs incurred to send union delegates to the state affiliate's annual convention, and (d) the salaries of the union'! s employees; 4) the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's challenge to the union's charges for media communications by its national affiliate; and 5) it erred in holding, sua sponte, that plaintiff will be required to arbitrate future claims against the union before filing suit.
Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ. (No. 07-4567)
Decision Date: October 23, 2009
In a gender and age discrimination action by an employee of a university, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff failed to produce evidence of an express or implied contract to continue her employment. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) in the circumstances here, a non-renewal of an employment contract itself was an adverse employment action and the district court erred in requiring plaintiff to show the existence of an unofficial tenured position to satisfy the adverse action requirement; and 2) the circumstances surrounding the non-renewal of her contract gave rise to an inference of age or gender discrimination.
Wilson v. CIA (No. 07-4244)
Decision Date: November 12, 2009
In a First Amendment action claiming that the CIA was required to allow former employee Valerie Plame Wilson to publish a memoir about her tenure at the agency, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff, and not the agency, permitted the classified information at issue to be revealed to the public; and 2) further, the public disclosure did not deprive the information of classified status, and the agency demonstrated good reason for adhering to its classification decision. A former CIA agent cannot use her own unauthorized disclosure of classified information to challenge the CIA's ability to maintain the information as classified.
EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. (08-5348)
Decision Date: November 19, 2009
In the EEOC′s appeal from a denial of its petition to enforce an administrative subpoena issued to UPS seeking information about how religious exemptions to UPS′s Uniform and Personal Appearance Guidelines were handled nationwide, the order is reversed where the district court, in finding that national information was not relevant to the charges being investigated by the EEOC, applied too restrictive a standard of relevance.
Duch v. Jakubek (No. 07-3503)
Decision Date: December 4, 2009
In a sex discrimination action claiming that defendant-supervisor should have prevented the harassment of plaintiff taking place, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff was not deprived of all reasonable avenues of complaint; and 2) defendants could not be liable based on information that plaintiff requested be kept confidential but which was conveyed to a co-worker. However, the order is reversed in part where a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer defendants: 1) knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, of the harassment directed at plaintiff; and 2) failed to take appropriate remedial action.
Reiseck v. Universal Comms. of Miami, Inc. (No. 09-1632)
Decision Date: January 11, 2010
In an action alleging sex discrimination and failure to pay overtime wages, summary judgment for defendants is vacated in part and the matter is remanded where, because plaintiff's primary duty was the sale of advertising space, she was properly considered a "salesperson" for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and therefore did not fall under the administrative exemption to the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA.
Hanrahan v. Riverside Nursing Home (No. 09-0585)
Decision Date: January 25, 2010
In an employment discrimination action, the dismissal of the complaint based on the res judicata effect of a prior state administrative proceeding is vacated where the state court's dismissal was not a decision on the merits that would preclude the filing of a renewed state court action.
DeRosa v. Nat'l. Envelope Corp. (No. 08-2562)
Decision Date: February 17, 2010
In an action alleging discrimination on account of a medical disability, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where plaintiff's statements on his job application did not judicially estop him from bringing his Americans with Disabilities Act claim because those statements did not contradict plaintiff's position on the critical issue of whether he was able to fulfill the essential functions of his employment with reasonable accommodation
Spiegel v. Schulmann (No. 06-5914)
Decision Date: May 6, 2010
In an action claiming that defendants violated the anti-retaliation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state laws by terminating plaintiffs as karate instructors, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court properly concluded that there is no individual liability for retaliation claims brought under the ADA; and 2) the district court correctly determined that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to consider in the first instance whether obesity was a disability under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
Zakrzewska v. The New School (No. 09-0611)
Decision Date: June 22, 2010
In a sexual harassment action, following the New York Court of Appeals\' answer to a certified question, a denial of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the affirmative defense to employer liability articulated in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), does not apply to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under section 8-107 of the New York City Administrative Code.
Vivenzio v. City of Syracuse (No. 08-2436)
Decision Date: July 1, 2010
In an action alleging racial discrimination by a city fire department, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the record did not establish as a matter of law that the city's continued reliance on racial considerations in the hiring of firefighters was justified by a prior consent decree.
In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litig. (No. 09-0437)
Decision Date: July 6, 2010
In an action by pharmaceutical company salespersons for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), summary judgment for defendant is vacated where, under the Department of Labor's regulations, the salespersons were not outside salesmen or administrative employees for purposes of the FLSA.
Henry v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc. (No. 08-1477-cv)
Decision Date: August 4, 2010
In an action for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where, although a reasonable juror could certainly have considered certain remarks by plaintiff's colleagues discriminatory, they have little probative value in the context of the case. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court's instruction on causation was erroneous because a causal connection was sufficiently demonstrated if the agent who decides to impose the adverse action but is ignorant of the plaintiff's protected activity acts pursuant to encouragement by a superior (who has knowledge) to disfavor the plaintiff.
Faghri v. Univ. of Conn. (No. 09-1862-cv)
Decision Date: September 17, 2010
In an action claiming that defendants unconstitutionally retaliated against plaintiff for his exercise of his right to free speech in violation of the First Amendment and violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when they removed him from his position as dean, a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where plaintiff had no clearly established right to remain as dean while voicing opposition to the policies of the team he was hired to be part of.
Myers v. Hertz Corp. (No. 08-1037)
Decision Date: October 27, 2010
In an action asserting claims against Hertz Rental Car for overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and various provisions of New York state law, a denial of class certification is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Hertz's common policy demonstrated little regarding whether the constituent issues that bore on Hertz's ultimate liability were provable in common.
Morin v. Tormey (No. 09-2960)
Decision Date: November 15, 2010
In an action alleging that plaintiff was subjected to adverse employment actions in violation of the First Amendment because of her refusal to assist the defendants in gathering adverse information about a Family Court judge to aid their efforts to prevent the judge's election to a higher judicial office, a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where neither the defense of qualified immunity nor defendant's alleged status as a policymaker had been established as a matter of law at this stage of the litigation.
Cenzon-DeCarlo v. Mt. Sinai Hosp. (No. 10-0556)
Decision Date: November 23, 2010
In an action claiming that plaintiff nurse was compelled by her supervisors to participate in a late-term abortion, suffering serious emotional harm as a result, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where there was no evidence that Congress intended to create a right of action under 42 U.S.C. section 300a-7(c).
Scott v. City of N.Y. (No. 09-5232)
Decision Date: December 1, 2010
In an appeal from the district court's order awarding plaintiff's counsel attorney's fees pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the order is vacated where, because the district court did not explain the basis on which counsel was excepted from the requirement that attorneys submit contemporaneous time records with their fee applications, the court was unable to divine whether the district court abused its discretion in granting such an exception.
Kuebel v. Black Decker Inc (No. 10-2273)
Decision Date: May 1, 2011
The district court's grant of summary judgment for B & D on the commute time claims is affirmed, the grant of summary judgment for B & D on the off-the-clock claims is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Fleischman v. Albany Medical Center (10-0846)
Decision Date: May 3, 2011
Because this petition was filed more than eighteen months after Rule 23(f)'s deadline for interlocutory appeals, it is dismissed on the ground that petitioners have not filed a timely petition with respect to an order reviewable pursuant to Rule 23(f).
Newspaper Guild v. Hearst (10-2402)
Decision Date: May 17, 2011
In a dispute involving the application of an arbitration provision contained in an expired collective-bargaining agreement, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where the contractual right to checkoff of union dues survives expiration of the agreement, thus subjecting the parties' dispute to arbitration.
Scott v. City of New York (No. 09-3943 )
Decision Date: May 24, 2011
In a dispute involving the scope of the Carey rule as applied to the award of attorney's fees and arising from the Fair Labor Standards Act's fee shifting provision, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), judgment of the district court is reversed because a district court's personal observation of an attorney's work is not by itself a sufficient basis for permitting a deviation and awarding fees in the absence of contemporaneous records
Ridinger v. Dow Jones & Co. (No. 10-1771)
Decision Date: July 11, 2011
In a labor and employment dispute concerning a claim of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. section 621 et seq., and state law, judgment of the district court dismissing complaint is affirmed on the basis of a separation agreement entered into by the parties in connection with the termination of plaintiff\'s employment, in which plaintiff agreed to waive and release all claims, including claims under the ADEA.
Bergerson v. Office of Mental Health (No. 10-1040)
Decision Date: July 21, 2011
In a dispute arising from a Title VII and state law action alleging disparate treatment and a hostile work environment, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e-17 and N.Y. Exec. Law sections 290-301, judgment of the district court is affirmed where the court properly held that the plaintiff abandoned her state law claims, but reversed where the court, without holding a separate inquest into backpay and without submitting the issue to the jury, improperly denied plaintiff's claim to backpay on the ground that the magnitude of the jury's award ensures that plaintiff will be made whole for her injuries, including for any lost wages, and for any pain, suffering, or emotional distress
Mullins v. City of New York (No. 09-3435)
Decision Date: August 5, 2011
In a dispute alleging denial of overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 201 et seq., judgment of the district court in favor of defendant, and on deference to the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of her own regulations, is reversed where the professional duty of plaintiffs, Police Department sergeants, is not management and thus does not qualify them for the bona fide executive exemption from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA.
Briscoe v. City of New Haven (No. 10-1975 )
Decision Date: August 15, 2011
In a dispute involving a disparate-impact challenge to defendant's promotion practices and where the plaintiff, an African-American firefighter for the City of New Haven, alleges that the firefighter promotion exams challenged in Ricci were arbitrarily weighted thus yielding an impermissible disparate impact, judgment of the district court is reversed where the court erred in dismissing the claim as necessarily foreclosed by Ricci
Novella v. Westchester County (No. 09-4061 )
Decision Date: November 3, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court arising from a class complaint under ERISA, judgment is affirmed where the court correctly awarded summary judgment to the lead-plaintiff on his individual claims for miscalculation of benefits, but reversed where the court erred in certifying the class and granting certain class judgments because the six-year statute of limitations began to run when each pensioner knew or should have known that the defendants had miscalculated the amount of his pension benefits such that some of the plaintiffs' claim may be stale.
Nagle v. Marron ( No. 10-1420 )
Decision Date: December 12, 2011
In a Section 1983 suit brought by a public school special education teacher against a school district, the school's principal and the superintendent of schools, summary judgment in favor of defendants is vacated and case remanded where: 1) teacher made a prima facie showing that retaliation in violation of the First Amendment free speech guarantee caused her to be denied tenure; 2) rebuttal by appellees was subject to credibility questions that could not be resolved as a matter of law; 3) principal and superintendent of schools were not entitled to qualified immunity; and 4) "cat's paw" theory of district's Section 1983 liability required District Court hearing.
Tiberio v. Allergy Asthma Immunology of Rochester (No. 11-2576)
Decision Date: December 20, 2011
District court judgment dismissing the plaintiff's disability discrimination claim against her former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act as untimely is affirmed where the plaintiff did not comply with the Act's requirement that a claim be filed within 90 days of the claimant's receipt of a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. Although the plaintiff may have filed her claim within 90 days of her counsel's receipt of the letter, the limitations period begins to run on the date that the letter is first received either by the claimant or by counsel, whichever is earlier
NLRB v. County Waste of Ulster, LLC (No. 10-3359)
Decision Date: January 6, 2012
United States Second Circuit, 01/06/2012
NLRB v. County Waste of Ulster, LLC, No. 10-3359
In a National Labor Relations Board administrative proceeding charging that an employer violated section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act by allowing a union to distribute a bonus to its employees when an election was pending, judgment by a panel of the Board finding a violation is affirmed, where: 1) the Board's review of the case was adequate; and 2) two members of the panel, who had entered a decision that was vacated and remanded pursuant to the US Supreme Court's decision in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010), which forbids a two-member panel of the Board to decide a case when the Board itself consists only of two members, properly participated in the panel that reviewed the case on remand.
Lore v. City of Syracuse (No. 09-3772)
Decision Date: February 2, 2012
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island
Sensing v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC (No. 08-1865)
Decision Date: August 11, 2009
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination under state law as she put forth evidence that defendant regarded plaintiff as handicapped, that she was still able to perform the essential functions of the job despite the handicap, and that she suffered an adverse employment action as a result of her handicap; and 2) a reasonable jury could find that the removal of plaintiff from the work schedule was predicated on impermissible discrimination rather than a permissible legitimate concern about her ability to perform the job safely.
Velez v. Thermo King De Puerto Rico, Inc. (No. 08-1320)
Decision Date: October 16, 2009
In plaintiff's age discrimination suit against his former employer, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated and remanded as, under the three stage burden shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), several aspects of the evidence, taken together, are more than sufficient to support a factfinder's conclusion that defendant was motivated by age-based discrimination, thus raising a genuine issue of material fact that defeats summary judgment.
Calvao v. Town of Framingham (No. 09-1648)
Decision Date: March 17, 2010
In police officers' putative class action suit against a town claiming that the town failed to pay them sufficient overtime in violation of the FLSA, district court's grant of partial summary judgment holding that the town met the eligibility requirements for the public safety exception is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' argument that the town was required to notify affected employees before establishing a valid work period under section 207(k) is rejected; 2) the text of the statute, as well as caselaw, confirm that a public employer need only establish a section 207(k) compliant work period to claim the exemption's benefits without explicitly giving notice to affected employees, and here, the town has done so and is entitled to judgment; and 3) plaintiffs' claim that the district court abused its discretion by denying their motion to strike certain evidence is rejected.
Rosario v. Dep't of the Army (No. 08-2168)
Decision Date: June 2, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against the Department of the Army and others, claiming that sexual harassment by her co-worker at an Army medical clinic subjected her to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment is vacated and remanded as a reasonably jury could find that plaintiff met her burden to show conduct that created a hostile work environment within the meaning of Title VII.
Galera v. Johanns (No. 08-2435)
Decision Date: July 14, 2010
In plaintiff's suit for retaliation under Title VII against the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, claiming that the USDA engaged in discriminatory employment and recruitment practices against him in retaliation for having engaged in protected activity, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as plaintiff's claims are barred as the alleged retaliatory conduct occurred prior to the effective date of the parties' settlement agreement, and the agreement complied with the relevant regulation.
Vera v. McHugh (No. 08-1886)
Decision Date: October 6, 2010
In plaintiff's Title VII suit claiming that she was sexually harassed by a co-worker and subsequently by a supervisor at a Fort Buchanan Army garrison in Puerto Rico, and then fired in retaliation for filing her sexual harassment complaints, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant on the sexual harassment claim against the supervisor is vacated and remanded as it cannot be ruled as a matter of law that the circumstances of plaintiff's employment did not constitute a hostile work environment; 2) the district court was well within its discretion in finding that plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit of equitable estoppel in her harassment claim against her co-worker; 3) it would be impossible for a rational jury to conclude that the supervisor's actions from October 2004 through mid-May 2005, which were taken in ignorance of plaintiff's sexual harassment complaint against the co-worker, were motivated by his desire to retaliate against her for those complaints; and 4) it would not be reasonable for a jury to conclude that the supervisor's actions were motivated by plaintiff's sexual harassment complaint against him.
Melendez v. Autogermana, Inc. (No. 09-1804)
Decision Date: October 12, 2010
In plaintiff's age discrimination in employment suit, district court's dismissal of the discriminatory discharge claim and denial of plaintiff's motions for reconsideration are affirmed where: 1) there is insufficient evidence to draw the inference that impermissible age discrimination was the determinative factor in plaintiff's termination; and 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of plaintiff's motions for reconsideration, as plaintiff failed to point to any manifest error of law in the district court's judgment dismissing his ADEA claim.
Vega-Colon v. Wyeth Pharm. (No. 09-1861)
Decision Date: October 28, 2010
In plaintiff\'s suit against his employer, claiming that the employer discriminated and retaliated against him based on his military service in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and Puerto Rico law, district court\'s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) because plaintiff has not shown evidence of discrimination other than the fact of non-selection and membership in the protected class, defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff\'s claim that defendant\'s failure to hire him for the reliability engineer position violated USERRA; 2) plaintiff has not made the requisite showing under USERRA that his military status was a motivating factor in defendant\'s decision to award a low performance rating; 3) the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of whether defendant\'s extension of the Performance Improvement Plan was an improper discriminatory action, as the evidence is sufficiently strong that a reasonable jury could find in plaintiff\'s favor; 4) plaintiff has failed to raise a cognizable claim with respect to the issue of being denied facility access; 5) there is no basis for the jury to conclude that plaintiff was subject to a hostile work environment; and 6) plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant retaliated against him in violation of USERRA for filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans\' Employment Training Services.
Ahern v. Shinseki (No. 09-1985)
Decision Date: December 13, 2010
In a suit brought by radiology technologists in the diagnostic imaging service at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center, under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming gender-based discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge, the district court\'s entry of summary judgment in favor of the employer is affirmed where: 1) because the employer did not refuse to hire any of the plaintiffs, the record presents no trialworthy issue as to discriminatory hiring; 2) plaintiffs\' retaliation claim fails on the merits and the employer has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for each of the challenged actions, and the plaintiffs have adduced no significantly probative evidence tending to show that the proffered reasons were a pretext masking a retaliatory animus; and 3) the fact that the vast majority of the employees who worked under defendant, male and female, were subject to the same treatment and chose to stay, underscores the absence of any foundation for a claim of constructive discharge.
Penalbert-Rosa v. Fortuno-Burset (No. 09-2391)
Decision Date: January 31, 2011
In a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that a government employee's termination violated her federal constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association, due process, and equal protection, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed as to the named defendants, but the case is remanded to allow plaintiff to move promptly to add a "John Doe" defendant, where it is evident that someone fired her based on political party membership.
Cintron-Lorenzo v. Fondo del Seguro del Estado (No. 10-1020)
Decision Date: February 7, 2011
In a woman's civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging sexual harassment and discrimination by her employment supervisor at a Puerto Rican government insurance fund, dismissal of equal protection claims is affirmed where they were filed after the statute of limitations had run.
Wilson v. Moulison North Corp. (No. 10-1387)
Decision Date: March 21, 2011
In a labor and employment dispute alleging a hostile, racial working environment, summary judgment in favor of employer is affirmed where the employer, when notified of the hostile environment, took prompt and appropriate corrective action.
Rios-Colon v. Toledo (No. 09-2296)
Decision Date: March 30, 2011
In a Title VII dispute alleging racial discrimination during the course of employment, Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal by district court on the grounds that Title VII applies to employers, not individual supervisors, is affirmed in part and vacated in part where the complaint plausibly alleged claims of racial discrimination and Equal Protection violations.
Aponte Rivera v. DHL Solutions USA, Inc. (No. 10-1655)
Decision Date: May 25, 2011
In a Title VII action alleging gender discrimination, district court's remittitur of $150, 000 is affirmed where court's finding that although the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to show a hostile work environment, the evidence did not support the amount of damages awarded did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Hernandez-Miranda v. Empresas Diaz Masso, Inc. (No. 10-1639)
Decision Date: June 29, 2011
In a Title VII dispute involving the proper interpretation of the caps on compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3), judgment of the trial court reducing jury award is reversed where "current" year for purposes of section 1981a(b)(3) liability refers to the year of the discrimination
Mendez-Aponte v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (No. 09-2534)
Decision Date: July 8, 2011
In an civil rights action arising from the termination of plaintiff from his employment as the Assistant Secretary of State for Protocol Affairs at the Puerto Rico State Department, 42 U.S.C. sections 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, summary judgment in favor of defendant and Rule 11 sanctions are affirmed where plaintiff's political affiliation was an appropriate basis for dismissal and the impostion of sanctions was not an abuse of discretion
Valle-Arce v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority (No. 10-1102)
Decision Date: July 8, 2011
In a labor and employment action alleging violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12101 et seq., judgment of the district court is reversed where it improperly granted, in a short oral ruling, defendant's oral motion for judgment as a matter of law
Cahoon, Jr. v. Shelton (No. 10-2134)
Decision Date: July 22, 2011
In a class-action dispute arising from the termination of certain benefits paid to retired firefighters and police officers, judgment of the district granting defendant partial summary judgment is affirmed where the plaintiffs, with the exception of two who succeeded in making out a claimant-specific case for estoppel, failed to show any basis in law or in equity sufficient to force payment of retirement benefits
Roman-Oliveras v. PREPA (No. 09-1503 )
Decision Date: August 18, 2011
In an employment action for unlawful discrimination on the basis of a medical condition and hostile work environment, judgment of the district court dismissing complaint by plaintiff who suffered schizophrenia throughout the period of his employment is reversed where complaint stated plausible discrimination based on the perception that plaintiff is disabled, but affirmed where Title I of the ADA does not provide for liability against individuals who are not themselves employers, and in all other respects
Tuli v. Brigham and Women's Hosp. ( No. 08-2026)
Decision Date: August 29, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court awarding plaintiff damages and a permanent injunction in a Title VII and state law action for gender-discrimination and retaliation, judgment is affirmed where the court committed not error and correctly awarded plaintiff $1,352,525.94 in attorneys' fees under the lodestar calculation.
Fryer v. A.S.A.P. Fire and Safety Corp., Inc. (Nos. 10-2047; 11-1021)
Decision Date: September 9, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court awarding damages and attorneys' fees against defendant for violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. Sections 4311 et seq., and related state claims, judgment is affirmed over challenges on the grounds that: 1) Massachusetts anti-discrimination law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, is preempted by the USERRA; 2) the jury determination of willfulness was unsupported; and 3) the damages and attorneys' fees awards were excessive.
OfficeMax, Inc. v. Levesque (No. 10-2423)
Decision Date: September 12, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court enjoining appellants from working in office supply sales within a certain locale based on the parties' noncompetition agreements, judgment is reversed where under the plain language of subject agreements, the one-year noncompetition period was triggered in 1996, when plaintiff's predecessor in interest purchased all of the shares of the appellants' employer.
Velazquez-Ortiz v. Vilsack (No. 10-1787)
Decision Date: September 22, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting summary adjudication in favor of the defendant in plaintiff's Title VII and ADEA claims, judgment is affirmed where plaintiff did not exhaust the required administrative remedies on her Title VII claim as she failed to raise it in an antecedent EEO complaint and because no reasonable factfinder could conclude that age was a motivating factor in defendant's decision to bypass plaintiff for a promotion.
Rodriguez-Sanchez v. Municipality of Santa Isabel (No. 09-2635)
Decision Date: September 29, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs' Section 1983 action on summary adjudication, judgment is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs had failed in their burden of producing evidence sufficient to show their terminations constituted due process deprivations or were politically motivated
Bhatti v. Trustees of Boston University (No. 10-2342 )
Decision Date: October 3, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing, on summary adjudication, plaintiff's Title VII and Section 1981 action for discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment, judgment is affirmed where plaintiff failed to establish evidence of actual animus because the record does not support plaintiff's claim of scheduling and treatment disparities
Colon Fontanez v. Municipality of San Juan (No. 10–1026)
Decision Date: October 12, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant in a Title VII and Rehabiliation Act action for disability discrimination in violation of the ADA, judgment is affirmed where the record supported summary judgment and because the court correctly: 1) refused to consider evidence for which no corresponding English translation was provided; 2) admitted summary charts prepared by a paralegal employed by the defendant-appellees' law firm; and 3) dismissed, sua sponte, plaintiff's equal protection claim.
Ramos-Echevarria v. Pichis (No. 10-1522)
Decision Date: October 21, 2011
In an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing plaintiff's ADA claim that defendant-employer discriminated against him on the basis of his epilepsy, judgment is affirmed where defendant's condition does not render him disabled within the meaning of the ADA, and because the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state claims.
Candelaria v. Orthobiologics LLC (No. 09-2305)
Decision Date: October 25, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing, as untimely, plaintiff's ERISA action filed three years after he suffered a disability while employed by the defendant, judgment is reversed on principles of equity because subject Plan was amended to provide a limitations period only after plaintiff had filed a claim and was in the middle of an internal appeals process.
National Labor Relations Board v. United States Postal Service (No. 11-1225)
Decision Date: October 27, 2011
In an application for enforcement of an order of the petitioner compelling the disclosure of certain aptitude test scores to a Union for purposes of collective bargaining, petition is denied where employees have a legitimate and substantial privacy interest in their test scores and because the petitioner failed to engage in a balancing of interests
Field v. Napolitano (No. 11-1339 )
Decision Date: November 10, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing appellant's complaint for employment discrimination on account of his disability and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, judgment is affirmed where the Aviation and Transportation Security Act precludes a cause of action under the Rehabilitation Act.
Farris v. Shinseki (No. 11-1080 )
Decision Date: November 10, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing appellant's disability discrimination complaint for failure to timely file a formal complaint with the EEOC, judgment is affirmed where the court's finding of no equitable exception was not an abuse of discretion.
Baiser v. IUE Local 201 (No. 10-2488 )
Decision Date: November 16, 2011
In an appeal from an order dismissing plaintiff's labor complaint on summary judgment, order is affirmed where plaintiff's allegations of wrongdoing on the grounds of impermissible reclassification of her employment position and breach of the duty of fair representation fail under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
Barry v. Moran (No. 10-1607)
Decision Date: November 22, 2011
In an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing plaintiffs' Section 1983 complaint alleging violations of their First Amendment right to be free of employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, judgment is affirmed because the choice of plaintiffs not to associate with politically-powerful members of the Boson Fire Department is not political or otherwise constitutionally protected conduct.
Hines v. State Room Inc. (No. 10-2298 )
Decision Date: November 28, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting partial summary judgment to defendant-employers in plaintiff's complaint for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Act), judgment is affirmed where the court correctly applied governing legal principles in finding that plaintiffs' work involved sufficient discretion, such that they were administrative employees and thus exempted from overtime compensation under the Act.
Villanueva v. US (No. 10-2431 )
Decision Date: November 30, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) complaint for wrongful termination, judgment is affirmed where there was no subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA because the Government's limited waiver of sovereign immunity is not applicable to constitutional tort claims and because the APA does not apply to Nonappropriated Fund employees.
RI Hospitality Association v. City of Providence (No. 11-1415 )
Decision Date: December 2, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court in defendant\\\'s favor concerning a challenge to the constitutionality of an ordinance of requiring that, when there is a change in the identity of a hospitality employer, that employer must retain its predecessor\\\'s employees, subject to some conditions, for a three-month period, judgment is affirmed where the ordinance is not pre-empted under the National Labor Relations Act, nor does it violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Contract Clause.
Bergemann v. RI Department of Environmental Management ( No. 11-1407 )
Decision Date: December 20, 2011
In an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act complaint on sovereign immunity grounds and summary judgment, order is affirmed where: 1) a state waives its sovereign immunity to a pleaded claim by removing that claim to the federal court only if the removal confers an unfair advantage on the removing state; and 2) plaintiffs had received the full measure of benefits to which they were entitled under a collective bargaining agreement and state law.
Ayala-Sepulveda v. Municipality of San German (No. 10-2123)
Decision Date: January 18, 2012
In a suit under 42 USC section 1983 alleging an employer's sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) allegations regarding events occurring prior to the one-year statute of limitations period were time-barred because the plaintiff did not demonstrate that he was subjected to a hostile work environment to which the continuing violation doctrine could apply; 2) the plaintiff's retaliatory transfer claim failed because there was no evidence of actual disparate treatment; and 3) the plaintiff's claim that he was transferred on the basis of his sexual orientation failed because there was no evidence that he was treated differently than others similarly situated.
Munoz v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiancia de Puerto Rico (No. 08-1887)
Decision Date: January 26, 2012
In a retaliation case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and Puerto Rico's general tort statute known as Article 1802, in which the jury found for the plaintiff, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence presented at trial was enough to support the jury's finding of retaliation; 2) the appellants waived defenses based on the statute of limitations, the exclusive remedies bar, and a purportedly erroneous jury instruction; 3) the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the requisite fault or negligence to sustain an Article 1802 claim; and 4) the awards of damages and attorney fees were proper. Read more...
Lawson v. FMR,LLC (No. 10-2240)
Decision Date: February 3, 2012
In two separate but related cases under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, alleging unlawful retaliation by employers that are private companies that act under contract as advisers to and managers of mutual funds organized under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the district court's denial of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim is reversed, as the whistleblower protection afforded by section 806(a) of the Act applies only to the employees of public companies as defined in the Act, and not to an employee of a contractor or subcontractor of a public company reporting suspected violations relating to fraud against shareholders of the public company. Read more...
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee
Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (No. 08-3246)
Decision Date: August 14, 2009
In a Title VII action claiming that Defendant failed to promote Plaintiff on the basis of her race and sex, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant's claim of mistake was a pretext for race discrimination; but reversed in part, where the combination of close temporal proximity between an employers heightened scrutiny and plaintiff's filing of an EEOC charge is sufficient to establish the causal nexus needed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
Hunter v. Valley View Local Schs. (No. 08-4109)
Decision Date: August 26, 2009
In an action claiming that defendant-employer impermissibly considered plaintiff's use of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave in deciding to place her on involuntary leave, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there was an issue of material fact as to whether the FMLA leave was a motivating factor in defendant's decision.
Pedreira v. Ky. Baptist Homes for Children (No. 08-5538)
Decision Date: August 31, 2009
In an action under the First Amendment and various employment statutes challenging defendant-Baptist Homes for Children's policy of firing and not hiring gay and lesbian employees, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where the termination of plaintiff based on her sexual orientation did not constitute discrimination on account of religion. However, the ruling is reversed in part where plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated standing as state taxpayers for their Establishment Clause challenge.
Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep't (08-1883)
Decision Date: September 23, 2009
In plaintiff's gender discrimination action under Title VII against the police department, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded as plaintiff, a patrol officer and a seventeen-year veteran with the department, had arguably superior qualification than the two successful applicants who received the promotions as detectives and produced other probative evidence of gender discrimination.
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. (No. 09-1134)
Decision Date: March 9, 2010
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district courts grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.
Spengler v. Worthington Cylinder (No. 08-3110)
Decision Date: July 27, 2010
In plaintiff's age discrimination suit against his former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Ohio's anti-discrimination statute, district court's denial of defendant's Rule 50(b) motion and jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in allowing plaintiff's case to proceed to trial as the language in plaintiff's EEOC charge sets forth sufficient facts to put the EEOC on notice of plaintiff's retaliation claim despite his failure to check the "Retaliation" box on the charge; 2) plaintiff's judicial complaint set forth facts establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADEA; 3) the totality of the evidence in the record does not lead reasonable minds to but one conclusion in favor of the defendant on the retaliation claim; 4) because plaintiff established the amount of his damages and defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff was not entitled to those damages, damages were properly awarded; and 5) the jury could have reasonably concluded that the supervisor's conduct was willful and therefore, liquidated damages were warranted.
Spees v. James Marine, Inc. (No. 09-5839)
Decision Date: August 10, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer and its subsidiary for pregnancy and disability discrimination, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's transfer claim as a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff's transfer to the tool room constituted an adverse employment action; 2) summary judgment was proper on plaintiff's pregnancy-discrimination claim based on plaintiff's termination; 3) district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on plaintiff's ADA claim to the extent it is based on the tool-room transfer; and 4) district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's disability claim based on her termination as plaintiff has presented no evidence that defendant regarded her as having an impairment that precluded her from working in the tool room.
White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. (No. 09-5626)
Decision Date: August 11, 2010
In plaintiff's sexual harassment suit against her former employers seeking $250,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on a claim of judicial estoppel is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff asserted a position before the bankruptcy court that was contrary to the position that she asserted before the district court as she did not disclose her sexual harassment claim against defendants in her initial bankruptcy filings; 2) plaintiff had a motive to conceal and knowledge of the factual basis of her harassment claim; and 3) the evidence plaintiff presented of her attempts to advise the bankruptcy court and the trustee of her harassment claim does not excuse her initial omission.
Franklin v. Kellogg Co. (No. 09-5880)
Decision Date: August 31, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against Kellogg Company on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees to recover wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for time spent donning and doffing Kellogg's mandatory food safety uniforms and protective equipment, and for time spent walking to and from the changing area and the time clock, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Kellogg is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) section 203 is not an exemption and therefore not an affirmative defense; 2) the items at issue are clothes within the meaning of section 203(o); 3) the evidence demonstrates that there was a custom or practice of nonpayment for time spent changing clothes under a bona fide CBA, and as such, time spent donning and doffing the equipment is excluded from "hours worked" under section 203(o); 4) under the continuous workday rule, plaintiff may be entitled to payment for her post-donning and pre-donning walking time, and as such, the matter is remanded because there are questions of fact as to the length of time it took her to walk from the changing area to the time clock and whether that time was de minimis.
Evans-Marshall v. Bd. of Educ. of the Tipp City Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. (No. 09-3775)
Decision Date: October 21, 2010
In a teacher's section 1983 suit against a school board and other individuals, claiming that defendants had retaliated against her curricular and pedagogical choices, infringing her First Amendment right to select books and methods of instruction for use in the classroom without interference from public officials, district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment is affirmed as the First Amendment does not protect primary and secondary school teachers' in-class curricular speech.
Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc. (No. 09-6351 )
Decision Date: November 3, 2010
In plaintiffs' suit against their former employer, claiming that the employer's drug testing policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, district court's holding that individuals do not need to be disabled to assert claims under section 12112(b)(6) is reversed in this interlocutory appeal where: 1) because the plain text of the statute requires that an individual bringing such a claim be disabled, and this interpretation is not "demonstrably at odds" with Congress's intent, the plain meaning controls; and 2) because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the district court's ruling on their putative claims under section 12112(d)(4) is inextricably intertwined with the certified issue, exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction is declined.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming
DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. Mgmt. Corp. (No. 08-4034)
Decision Date: August 14, 2009
In a Title VII action alleging that Defendant improperly terminated Plaintiff while she was on medical leave, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of the intent necessary for religious discrimination; but reversed in part, where there were many reasons to question Defendants' evidence regarding the alleged grounds for Plaintiff's termination.
Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy (No. 08-1325)
Decision Date: April 21, 2010
In an action alleging that violated plaintiffs\' First Amendment rights while they were employed at defendant school by unlawfully prohibiting them from meeting together to discuss school matters and retaliating against them when they did so, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) there was no authority suggesting that an employer who expressed a preference regarding employee association thereby imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint; 2) controlling precedent would not have put a reasonable administrator on notice that the speech at each meeting at issue, viewed in the aggregate, was protected by the First Amendment; and 3) the record does not support the conclusion that the school board ratified plaintiffs\' supervisor\'s directives on employee speech. However, the judgment is reversed in part where there was no support for imposing the requirement that a government employee request clarification or complain to his supervisor before being permitted to file a complaint challenging his employer's speech restrictions.
Rodriguez v. Wet Ink, LLC (No. 08-1313)
Decision Date: April 26, 2010
In an employment discrimination suit against plaintiff's former employer, summary judgment for defendant on the ground that the action was time-barred is reversed where the state anti-discrimination agency's notice in this case did not trigger the 90-day limitation period for purposes of filing a federal action under Title VII, because nothing in the worksharing agreement between the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) and the EEOC, or relevant case law, supported defendant's view that the CCRD could issue right-to-sue notices on behalf of the EEOC.
Wilkerson v. Shinseki (No. 09-8027)
Decision Date: June 2, 2010
In an action claiming that plaintiff\'s reassignment discriminated against him based on his obesity and diabetes, and that age discrimination played a role in his reassignment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff was not otherwise qualified to hold the position as required by the Rehabilitation Act; 2) defendant had a non-discriminatory reason for removing plaintiff that was not pretextual; and 3) plaintiff did not allege that the accessing of his health records was intentional misconduct, as required by the Privacy Act.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
Laouini v. CLM Freight Lines, Inc. (No. 08-3721)
Decision Date: August 20, 2009
In an employment-discrimination case, district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant on grounds that the plaintiff failed to timely file a charge with the EEOC is vacated and remanded where defendant failed to show absence of a genuine factual dispute over whether plaintiff's charge had been timely filed via fax where it was not the plaintiff who had to prove receipt, but the defendant who had to prove the absence of receipt - the fax confirmation creates a factual dispute sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
Ekstrand v. Sch. Dist. of Somerset (No. 09-1853)
Decision Date: October 6, 2009
In plaintiff's lawsuit against her former employer claiming that school district failed to accommodate her seasonal effective disorder and constructively discharged her in violation of the ADA, judgment of the district court is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim is reversed as plaintiff satisfied all three elements required for the claim; and 2) summary judgment on the constructive-discharge claim was proper as plaintiff failed to show that the conditions of her employment even approached the intolerable levels normally required in constructive-discharge cases.
Brunker v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc. (No. 07-3183)
Decision Date: October 22, 2009
In plaintiff's disability discrimination action against his former employer, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer is affirmed in part, reversed and vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the disability-discrimination claim is remanded as, although plaintiff's impairments are not sufficient to show that he is disabled, the record contains adequate evidence to support a theory that defendant regarded him as being disabled in the major life activities of walking, caring for himself, and speaking; 2) district court's summary judgment on the reasonable-accommodation claim is affirmed; 3) district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to compel discovery on certain issues is reversed; and 4) award of sanctions is vacated because the magistrate judge unreasonably imposed them in response to plaintiff's discovery requests.
Butler v. Village of Round Lake Police Dep't (No. 08-3856)
Decision Date: October 27, 2009
In plaintiff-police officer's ADA claim against defendant-village, dismissal of his case on the ground of judicial estoppel is affirmed where: 1) to succeed on an ADA claim, a plaintiff must show that with or without reasonable accommodations, he can perform the essential functions of his job; and 2) here, accepting plaintiff's sworn testimony before the pension board as true, the court could not see how he could perform essential police functions with or without accommodations.
Sherwood v. Marquette Transp. Co., LLC (No. 09-2045)
Decision Date: November 23, 2009
In plaintiff′s suit against his employer under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries he suffered while working as a deckhand, defendant-employer′s appeal of a district court′s denial of its motion to stay the suit in favor of arbitration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. section 16(a)(1)(A) as: 1) section 16 is part of the Federal Arbitration Act, and as such, under the language of section 1, does not apply to any employment contract involving a seaman; and 2) section also is inapplicable, and defendant′s motion for a stay did not rely on it.
Musch v. Domtar Indus., Inc. (No. 08-4305)
Decision Date: November 25, 2009
In plaintiff′s suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeking compensation for the time spent changing clothes and showering at the end of each work shift at defendant\′s paper mill, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs′ daily post-shift activities are done under normal conditions and are merely postliminary non-compensable activities; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff\′s motion to reconsider in concluding that plaintiff merely rehashed the arguments he had made at summary judgment and failed to present evidence of extraordinary and exceptional circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6).
Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd. (No. 09-1181)
Decision Date: December 21, 2009
In an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act brought by truck drivers against a wholesale importer and distributor of wine claiming that they were not paid overtime, judgment for the defendant is affirmed as the portion of the transportation that is entirely within Illinois is nevertheless interstate commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act and therefore, the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from its overtime provisions any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of title 49.
Turner v. Saloon, Ltd. (No. 07-2449)
Decision Date: February 8, 2010
In plaintiff's employment discrimination suit against his former employer, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the judgment of the district court is affirmed to the extent that it dismissed plaintiff's ADA claims, his overtime claims, and his Title VII retaliation claim; but 2) judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiff's hostile-workplace claim based on alleged sexual harassment is reversed and remanded as the court dismissed the claim after excluding most of the alleged instances of harassment as time-barred, contrary to Supreme Court precedent establishing that in a hostile-workplace claim, acts of harassment falling outside Title VII's statute of limitations may be considered as long as some act of harassment occurred within the limitations period.
Bailey v. Pregis Innovative Packaging, Inc. (No. 09-3539)
Decision Date: April 2, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. section 2601, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim that she is entitled to toll the 12-month period for the 56 days during that period in which she was on FMLA leave is rejected as there is no basis for such a contortion of the statute; and 2) plaintiff's argument that the defendant retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave fails as defendant's no-fault attendance policy is a lawful method of determining whether an employee has a sufficiently strong commitment to working for his employer to wipe an absence off his record, and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that commitment.
Alvarez v. City of Chicago (No. 09-2020)
Decision Date: May 21, 2010
In two lawsuits against the City of Chicago brought by paramedics, claiming that it willfully failed to properly compensate them for overtime, district court's grant of the City's motion for summary judgment is reversed and remanded as, the district court erred in dismissing the claims of the named plaintiffs as they have the right to proceed individually.
Goelzer v. Sheboygan County (No. 09-2283)
Decision Date: May 12, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against her former county employer for her termination two weeks before she was scheduled to begin two months of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), claiming the employer interfered with her right to reinstatement under the Act and retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave, summary judgment in favor of defendants is reversed as plaintiff has put forth enough evidence for this case to reach a trier of fact, including comments suggesting her supervisor's dissatisfaction with her use of FMLA leave, her positive performance reviews, and the timing of her termination.
Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Ctr. (No. 09-3661)
Decision Date: July 21, 2010
In a Title VII action claiming that a nursing home's practice of acceding to the racial biases of its residents was illegal and created a hostile work environment, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) the racial preference policy violated Title VII by creating a hostile work environment; and 2) issues of fact remained over whether race motivated plaintiff's discharge.
Sottoriva v. Claps (No. 09-1311)
Decision Date: August 17, 2010
District court's reduction of an Illinois Department of Human Rights employee's fee award by 67%, accounting for the partial success of the employee's suit against the Director of the Department and the Comptroller of the State of Illinois for withholding portions of his salary without an adequate hearing, is vacated and remanded as, although it was entirely proper for the district court to conclude that plaintiff achieved only "partial" success and that the lodestar figure should thus be reduced to reflect this fact, the district court provided insufficient reasoning in support of its judgment.
Xodus v. Wackenhut Corp. (No. 09-3082)
Decision Date: August 27, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against a security firm, claiming that it violated Title VII when it did not hire him as a security guard because plaintiff would not cut his dreadlocks, judgment that defendant did not engage in religious discrimination when it refused to hire plaintiff on account of his dreadlocked hairstyle is affirmed where: 1) the court's decision to credit the interviewing manager's testimony that plaintiff never informed him that religious belief required him to wear dreadlocks is both plausible from the evidence and sufficiently explained in the opinion; 2) plaintiff waived his claim that the district court erred by preventing him from testifying about his EEOC intake questionnaire; and 3) plaintiff's claims that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to defendant on the issue of whether he mitigated his damages and whether he was entitled to punitive damages are moot.
McCann v. Iroquois Mem'l Hosp. (No. 08-3420)
Decision Date: September 13, 2010
In a hospital employees' suit against the hospital, its Board of Trustees, its Chief Executive Officer, and another employee, for violation of the Wiretap Act, claiming that the employee intentionally intercepted their conversation criticizing hospital , and disclosed the contents of the recording to justify sanctioning the plaintiffs, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) because the parties presented two different but plausible stories, an issue of fact remains, and as such, the claims against the employee and the hospital should not have been resolved on summary judgment; and 2) district court's grant of summary judgment on the claims against the CEO and the trustees is affirmed as the evidence does not show that the CEO knew that the employee acted unlawfully and the only trustee who might have known did not use or disclose the recordings.
Norman-Nunnery v. Madison Area Tech Coll. (No. 09-1757 )
Decision Date: November 8, 2010
In plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation suit against a college and three of its employees, claiming that she was not hired by the college because of her race and because her husband had previously filed a frivolous lawsuit against the same defendants, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff is not entitled to a favorable inference under the spoliation doctrine as there is no evidence that any of the defendants destroyed documents in bad faith; 2) district court correctly granted judgment in favor of the defendant on plaintiff's claim of racial discrimination in hiring as there is no evidence supporting her claim of pretext; and 3) plaintiff's claim of "marital association retaliation" cannot survive summary judgment because she has failed to provide any evidence that the defendants refused to hire her because of her marriage to her husband.
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Autozone, Inc. (No. 10-1353)
Decision Date: December 30, 2010
In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) suit on behalf of defendant's former employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act, district court's grant of summary judgment on a failure-to-accommodate claim is reversed and remanded as the evidence the EEOC has presented is plainly susceptible to the determination that the employee had a disability within the meaning intended by the ADA as required to prove a failure to accommodate, and as such, summary judgment should not have been granted on that basis that the employee was not disabled.
Ervin v. OS Restaurant Servs., Inc. (No. 09-3029)
Decision Date: January 18, 2011
In plaintiffs' suit against their employer under the FLSA, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, claiming that the employer violated the minimum wage and maximum hour provisions of both the FLSA and the IMWL, district court's denial of plaintiffs' effort to proceed as a class under Rule 23(b)(3) on the ground that there is a clear incompatibility between the plaintiffs' FLSA proceeding and their proposed class action is reversed and remanded, as there is no categorical rule against certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) state law class action in a proceeding that also includes a collective action brought under the FLSA because nothing in the text of the FLSA or the procedures established by the statute suggests either that the FLSA was intended generally to oust other ordinary procedures used in federal court or that class actions in particular could not be combined with an FLSA proceeding.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington
EEOC v. Boeing Co. (No. 07-16903)
Decision Date: August 18, 2009
In a sex discrimination action by the EEOC, summary judgment for defendant-employer is reversed where the EEOC introduced adequate evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the reasons defendant advanced to justify its employment actions were pretextual.
LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka (No. 07-17116)
Decision Date: September 15, 2009
In an action claiming that defendant violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by accessing plaintiff's computer without authorization, both while defendant was employed by plaintiff and after he left the company, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant was authorized to use plaintiff's computers while he was employed by plaintiff, and thus he did not access a computer "without authorization" in violation of the applicable statutes when he emailed documents to himself and to his wife prior to leaving employment; and 2) plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant accessed plaintiff's website without authorization after he left the company.
Indergard v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (No. 08-35278)
Decision Date: September 28, 2009
In an action claiming that defendant-employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating plaintiff based on her failure to pass a physical capacity evaluation, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the district court erred in holding that the evaluation was not a medical examination within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 12112(d)(4)(A).
Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc. (No. 07-36011)
Decision Date: October 2, 2009
In an action for unpaid wages under the Seamen's Wage Act, the district court's order granting defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where claims under the Act are subject to arbitration pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and plaintiff's claim was subject to a valid arbitration agreement.
Fleming v. Yuma Reg. Med. Ctr. (07-16427)
Decision Date: November 19, 2009
In an action for employment discrimination based on plaintiff′s disability, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 794, extends to a claim of discrimination brought by an independent contractor because the Rehabilitation Act covers all individuals "subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co. (No. 08-15549)
Decision Date: December 11, 2009
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action alleging that defendant retaliated against plaintiff for complaining that his manager had discriminated against him based on his disability, an order denying plaintiff the right to seek compensatory and punitive damages is affirmed where the plain and unambiguous provisions of 42 U.S.C. section 1981a limited the availability of compensatory and punitive damages to those specific ADA claims listed, and retaliation was not on the list.
United Steel, Paper & Forestry Int'l. Union v. ConocoPhillips Co. (No. 09-56578)
Decision Date: January 6, 2010
In an action seeking compensation for defendant's alleged denial of employees' meal breaks, denial of class certification is reversed where the district court abused its discretion when it assumed, for the purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 certification analysis and without any separate inquiry into the merits, that plaintiffs' legal theory would fail.
Traxler v. Multnomah Cty. (No. 08-35641)
Decision Date: February 26, 2010
In a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) action based on an allegedly wrongful termination, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where, under the FMLA, front pay is an equitable remedy to be determined by the court. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the district court erred in denying liquidated damages without making specific findings as to the employer's good faith conduct and reasonable belief that it was not violating the statute.
Rutti v. Vermillion (No. 07-56599)
Decision Date: March 2, 2010
In a class action on behalf of all technicians employed by defendant to install alarms in customers' cars, in which plaintiff sought compensation for the time technicians spent commuting to worksites in defendant\'s vehicles and for time spent on preliminary and postliminary activities performed at their homes, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) pursuant to the Employment Commuter Flexibility Act, use of an employer\'s vehicle to commute was not compensable even if it was a condition of employment; and 2) the conditions defendant placed on plaintiff's use of its vehicle did not make his commute compensable. However, the judgment is vacated in part where, on summary judgment, the district court could not determine that plaintiff\'s postliminary activities were not integral to plaintiff\'s principal activities.
Alcazar v. Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (No. 09-35003)
Decision Date: March 16, 2010
In an action seeking pay for the overtime hours plaintiff worked as a seminarian in a Catholic church in Washington, dismissal of the action is affirmed where the ministerial exception barred the claim because: 1) the First Amendment strongly circumscribed legislative and judicial intrusion into the internal affairs of a religious organization; 2) awarding damages would necessarily trench on the Church's protected ministerial decisions; and 3) plaintiff's complaint demonstrated that plaintiff was a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception.
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (No. 04-16688)
Decision Date: April 26, 2010
In a Title VII action alleging discrimination against female employees by Wal-Mart, certification of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class of current employees with respect to their claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and back pay is affirmed where: 1) it was within the district court's discretion, and in line with Falcon, to determine that the commonality prerequisite to class certification was satisfied; 2) decentralized, subjective decision making could contribute to a common question of fact regarding the existence of discrimination; and 3) because the discrimination they claimed to have suffered occurred through alleged common practice -- e.g., excessively subjective decision making in a corporate culture of uniformity and gender stereotyping--the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that their claims were sufficiently typical to satisfy Rule 23(a)(3). With respect to plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages, and as to those class members who no longer worked for Wal-Mart, the certification order is remanded so the district court could consider: 1) whether certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the punitive damages claims would cause monetary relief to predominate; and 2) whether an additional class or classes may be appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to the claims of former employees.
Porter v. Winter (No. 07-17120)
Decision Date: May 5, 2010
In an action challenging the amount of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff in Title VII administrative proceedings, dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where, under New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54 (1980), federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought solely to recover attorney's fees incurred in Title VII administrative proceedings.
Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's (No. 07-16094)
Decision Date: June 10, 2010
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's court vacating an arbitral award on the ground of its excessive size and vacating a punitive damages award on the additional ground that the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction to enter it after the panel had entered its compensatory award, the order is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in concluding that the size of the arbitration awards demonstrated manifest disregard of the law; 2) the fact that the majority of the arbitrators may have made a mistake in citing a benefit that plaintiff had not purchased did not establish irrationality of its ultimate conclusion that defendant breached its contract; 3) nothing in plaintiff's policy expressly withdrew determination of procedural issues from the panel; and 4) defendant failed to demonstrate either evident partiality or evident corruption in the arbitrators.
Breiner v. Nev. Dep't of Corr. (No. 09-15568)
Decision Date: July 8, 2010
In an action challenging the State of Nevada's policy of hiring only female correctional lieutenants at a women's prison, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) Title VII protects the ability to pursue one's own career goals without being discriminated against on the basis of race or sex, even if others of the same race or sex were not subject to disadvantage; and 2) defendants did not show that "all or nearly all" men would tolerate sexual abuse by male guards, or that it is "impossible or highly impractical" to assess applicants individually for this qualification.
Narayan v. EGL, Inc. (No. 07-16487.)
Decision Date: July 13, 2010
In an action seeking unpaid overtime wages, business expenses, meal compensation and unlawful deductions from wages under the California Labor Code, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where, under California's multi-faceted test of employment, there existed at the very least sufficient indicia of an employment relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant such that a reasonable jury could find the existence of such a relationship.
Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc. (No. 08-15903)
Decision Date: August 16, 2010
In an action by flight attendants who were dismissed for sexual harassment, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex and national origin in violation of Title VII, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by focusing on the inference of discrimination that was central to plaintiffs' case; and 2) even assuming the female flight attendants reported to the same supervisor as plaintiffs, the two groups were not similarly situated because the female employees' alleged conduct was not unwelcome and never resulted in a complaint.
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc. (No. 07-17221)
Decision Date: September 3, 2010
In a sexual harassment case in which a male employee was the victim of a female co-worker, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether: 1) plaintiff was subjected to "verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature"; 2) such conduct was unwelcome; 3) the pervasiveness and the inadequate response by the employer established a jury question of whether a co-worker's overtures led to an abusive environment; 4) defendant's actions were not enough to establish an affirmative defense.
Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc. (Nos. 08-55483, 08-56740)
Decision Date: September 27, 2010
In an action brought against a Chinese-language newspaper by some of its California-based employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and under California law, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the evidence before the district court did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to the reporters' status; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class; 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in invalidating the opt-outs and in restricting defendant's ability to communicate with class members; 4) substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict; 5) the FLSA does not preempt a state-law section 17200 claim that "borrows" its substantive standard from FLSA; and 5) it was within the district court's discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the section 17200 claim in this case.
Stiefel v. Bechtel Corp. (No. 09-55764 )
Decision Date: November 1, 2010
In an action alleging that defendant discriminated against plaintiff because of a disabling work-related injury and failed to accommodate that disability, and then laid him off to retaliate against him for seeking accommodation, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where plaintiff failed to demonstrate either that he applied to be rehired or that it would have been futile to do so. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiffs' California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) charge was deemed filed with the EEOC pursuant to a "Worksharing Agreement" between the DFEH and the EEOC.
Gordon v. City of Oakland (No. 09-16167)
Decision Date: November 19, 2010
In a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) challenge to the City of Oakland's policy requiring police officers to repay a portion of their training costs if they voluntarily leave the City's employment before completing five years of service, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where, because the City issued plaintiff a paycheck exceeding the minimum wage amount, the City's reimbursement demand did not violate the FLSA's minimum wage provision.
Eklund v. City of Seattle Mun. Ct. ( No. 09-35652)
Decision Date: November 24, 2010
In an action alleging wrongful termination of plaintiff's employment by a municipal court and denial of due process of law in his termination, the denial of qualified immunity to defendants is reversed where a reasonable person in defendant-judge's position would not have believed that he was constitutionally required to recuse himself.
Coppinger-Martin v. Solis (No. 09-73725)
Decision Date: November 30, 2010
In action alleging that Nordstrom, Inc. violated the whistleblower-protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, by terminating petitioner's employment in retaliation for her reporting to supervisors conduct she believed violated the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board's order dismissing petitioner's complaint as untimely filed is affirmed where petitioner filed her complaint on October 13, 2006, more than 90 days after her final day of work, and equitable tolling did not apply.
Dawson v. Entek Int'l (No. 09-35844)
Decision Date: January 10, 2011
In an action for sexual orientation discrimination, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where plaintiff produced circumstantial evidence of retaliatory discharge and sexual orientation hostile work environment, such that resolution of this action by summary judgment was error.
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (No. 10-15257)
Decision Date: February 15, 2011
In a suit for back pay, challenging the defendant-employer\'s classification of plaintiffs as \"outside salesmen\", a legal designation that exempts an employee from the FLSA\'s overtime-pay requirement, grant of summary judgment to employer is affirmed where the pharmaceutical industry\'s representatives (detail men and women) share many more similarities than differences with their colleagues in other sales fields, and are thus are exempt from the FLSA overtime-pay requirement.
Adam v. Norton (No. 09-17091)
Decision Date: March 1, 2011
In a dispute over the scope of government sovereign immunity waiver under the Back Pay Act, 5 USC sections 5596(b)(1)-(b)(2)(A), grant of motion for relief from judgment is reversed because sovereign waiver of immunity applies to interest on an award of back pay for employment termination in violation of the ADEA.
Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability Plan (No. 08-55426)
Decision Date: March 7, 2011
In a wrongful denial of benefits claim under ERISA, judgment by district court upholding denial of benefits is reversed because plan administrator with a conflict of interest abused discretion.
Sanders v. City of Newport (No. 08-35996)
Decision Date: March 17, 2011
In a labor and employment dispute involving employer liability for FMLA and OFLA violations following the termination of plaintiff after an approved medical leave, judgments of trial court are reversed where trial court improperly instructed the jury on the elements of FMLA interference claim.
Bardzik v. County of Orange (No. 09-55103)
Decision Date: March 28, 2011
In a Section 1983 dispute alleging retaliation through adverse employment action, district court's denial of qualified immunity defense is affirmed in part and reversed in part where plaintiff, as Reserve Division Commander of Sheriff's Department, was a policymaker but not during his subsequent position.
Zeinali v. Raytheon Co. (No. 09-56283)
Decision Date: April 4, 2011
In a labor and employment dispute involving a claim of discriminatory termination under the the FEHA, Cal. Gov. Code sectoin 12940 et seq, judgment of the district court dismissing claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where court had jurisdiction because plaintiff did not dispute the merits of an executive branch decision denying him security clearance, but instead, disputed the bona fides of a professed security clearance requirement while introducing evidence to satisfy his pleading burdens under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973).
Marlo v. United Parcel Service (No. 09-56196)
Decision Date: April 28, 2011
In a labor and employment dispute involving the scope of Cal. Lab. Code section 515(a), judgment of the district court decertifying class on the ground that plaintiff did not meet his Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) -(b) certification burden is affirmed because judgment was not an abuse of discretion.
Chudacoff v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada (No. 09-17558)
Decision Date: June 9, 2011
In a Section 1983 dispute arising from the suspension of plaintiff's medical staff privileges and involving against whom the plaintiff may bring action, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part because individually named doctor defendants who serve as voting members of credentialing committee may not be sued and where plaintiff failed to show that his due process injuries were the product of institutional policies.
Barboza v. California Assn. of Professional Firefighters (No. 09-16818)
Decision Date: June 30, 2011
In a dispute concerning whether plaintifff's ERISA claim should have been deemed administratively exhuasted under 29 C.F.R. section 2560.503-1(l), judgment of the trial court dismissing action is reversed because where a claimant seeks review of his or her disability claims, the quarterly meeting rule is restricted to multiemployer plans and therefore inasmuch as defendant failed to render a decision within ninety days of plaintiff's administrative appeal, plaintiff's claim must be deemed exhausted.
Johnson v. Lucent Technologies Inc. (No. 09-55203 )
Decision Date: August 4, 2011
In a labor and employment dispute concerning whether 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 retaliation claims are governed by the four-year statute of limitations applicable to claims arising under an Act of Congress enacted after December 1, 1990, 28 U.S.C. Section 1658, or by the personal injury statute of limitations of the forum state, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where because they arise under a post-December 1, 1990 Act of Congress, section 1981 retaliation claims are governed by the four-year statute of limitations under Section 1658.
Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc. (No. 10-15965)
Decision Date: August 9, 2011
In an dispute arising from a class-action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and state labor laws, judgment of the district court denying plaintiff class certification is reversed as an abuse of discretion where a rejected Rule 68 offer of judgment for the full amount of a putative class representative's individual claim does not moot a class action complaint where the offer precedes the filing of a motion for class certification.
Diaz v. Brewer (No. 10-16797)
Decision Date: September 6, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of state law would have terminated eligibility for healthcare benefits of state employees' same-sex partners, Rev. Stat. Section 38-651(O), judgment is affirmed because of the court's findings that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because they showed that the law adversely affected a classification of employees on the basis of sexual orientation and did not further any of the state's claimed justifiable interests, and that they had established a likelihood of irreparable harm in the event coverage for partners ceased.
Solis v. State of Washington DSHS (No. 10–35590)
Decision Date: September 9, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in an FLSA action, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq., alleging that defendant-state agency failed to pay overtime compensation to certain social workers, judgment is reversed where defendant did not met its burden of showing that its social worker positions meet the regulatory requirement to enjoy the FLSA's "learned professional" exemption.
Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc. FCD KJM VNU USA US (No. 09-17477)
Decision Date: September 26, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's state claims for age and disability discrimination and wrongful termination on summary adjudication, judgment is reversed where viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, reasonable jurors could find that defendant's proffered reason for terminating plaintiff's employment was a pretext for age discrimination.
Durand v. US Department of Labor (No. 10-36184 )
Decision Date: November 17, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying plaintiff a deduction of costs from a Federal Employee Compensation Act refund, 5 U.S.C. Section 8132, judgment is affirmed where a beneficiary under Section 8132 may deduct his litigation costs only from his gross recovery to determine the amount, if any, of the surplus he must credit to the United States for future benefits.
NLRB v. Legacy Health System (No. 10-72478)
Decision Date: November 21, 2011
In a petition for enforcement of an administrative order finding that respondent violated sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by prohibiting its employees from simultaneously hold bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit positions, 29 U.S.C. section 158(a)(1), judgment is enforcement where the court lacks jurisdiction to hear respondent's exceptions to the order.
Johnson v. Board of Trustees of the Boundary County School (No. 10-35233 )
Decision Date: December 8, 2011
In an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing plaintiff-teacher's ADA complaint for employment discrimination, judgment is affirmed where although plaintiff was physically and mentally capable of performing her duties, she does not qualify within the meaning of the ADA because she failed to allege that the defendant's requirement that she be legally authorized to teach was discriminatory.
Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (No. 06-56649 )
Decision Date: December 13, 2011
In an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing, on summary judgment, plaintiffs\' class-action complaint for employee misclassifications, order is: 1) affirmed with respect to the dismissal of plaintiffs\' FLSA Section 17200 claims; but 2) reversed on the claims alleging state labor code and unfair competition violations.
Plaza Auto Center, Inc. v. NLRB (No. 10-72728 )
Decision Date: December 19, 2011
In a petition for review of an order of the defendant holding that petitioner violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by firing an employee for his outburst during a meeting with petitioner's management, petition is granted with a remand where the defendant-NLRB failed to properly balance the Atlantic Steel factors.
Shelley v. Geren (No. 10-35014)
Decision Date: January 2, 2012
In an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing, on summary judgment, plaintiff's complaint for employment discrimination on the basis of age, 29 U.S.C. section 621 et seq., order is vacated where the plaintiff presented a prima facie case of age discrimination and evidence of pretext sufficient to create a material dispute as to whether age-related bias was the "but-for" cause of the defendant's failure to interview and promote him.
White v. City of Pasadena (No. 08-57012)
Decision Date: January 17, 2012
In an action stemming a former police officer's termination from her employment with a city, the district court's dismissal is affirmed on the grounds of issue preclusion, where: 1) the allegations supporting claims of discrimination and harassment were all alleged and decided against the plaintiff in a prior state-court suit; and 2) it was determined in a prior city administrative proceeding, upheld on review by the state trial and appellate courts, that the city had an adequate justification for the plaintiff's termination that was not a pretext for a retaliatory intent.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virgin Islands
Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc. (No. 07-3997)
Decision Date: August 28, 2009
In an employment discrimination action under Title VII involving claims of gender stereotyping and religious harassment, district court\'s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated with respect to the gender stereotyping claim, as the record below is ambiguous as to whether the claim was based on sexual orientation or discrimination because of sex, and thus because both are plausible, the case presents a question of fact for the jury and is not appropriate for summary judgment. District court\'s grant of summary judgment on the religious harassment claim was proper as plaintiff cannot satisfy the first element of his cause of action that there was intentional harassment because of religion.
Mikula v. Allegheny County of Pennsylvania (No. 07-4023)
Decision Date: September 10, 2009
In plaintiff's gender and employment discrimination action alleging pay disparity against County-employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, district court's judgment that the Title VII claim is untimely as to paychecks plaintiff received after June 20, 2006, is reversed and remanded in light of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, where a failure to answer a request for a raise qualifies as a compensation decision because the result is the same as if the request had been explicitly denied.
Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (07-3796)
Decision Date: September 23, 2009
In plaintiff's case against her former employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and for retaliation, summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer is affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) the record indicates that a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant-Nationwide had constructive notice of hours plaintiff worked from home and thus, she was eligible for FMLA leave for purposes of summary judgment; 2) the version of section 825.110 in effect at the time of plaintiff's dismissal was invalid; 3) firing an employee for a valid request for FMLA leave may constitute interference with the employee's FMLA rights as well as retaliation against the employee; and 4) because no reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff was fired because of her daughter's known disability, district court's summary judgment on her ADA claim is affirmed.
Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Group Inc. (No. 09-1105)
Decision Date: October 6, 2009
In plaintiff's race, national-origin, employment discrimination and retaliation action against defendant-former employer, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims in his second complaint is affirmed as plaintiff's federal claims are barred by res judicata because his section 1981 claims arise from the same set of facts as his Title VII claims which were dismissed in his first complaint. Also, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state claim and dismissed without prejudice instead of dismissing that claim with prejudice.
Pignataro v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey (No. 08-3605)
Decision Date: January 27, 2010
In plaintiffs' suit against defendant-Port Authority under the FLSA, alleging they were denied proper overtime pay as helicopter pilots, summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) Port Authority helicopter pilots are not "learned professionals" and are not exempt from the provisions of the FLSA; 2) district court correctly concluded that Port Authority's violation of the FLSA was not willful, and that plaintiffs were thus entitled to only two years of back pay, not three; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest to plaintiffs.
Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Health Servs., Inc. (No. 09-1635)
Decision Date: March 11, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for violation of the FMLA, summary judgment in favor employer is vacated and remanded as an employee may satisfy her burden of proving three days of incapacitation through a combination of expert medical and lay testimony. Here, when expert medical opinion of a doctor that plaintiff was incapacitated for two days because of her illness is combined with plaintiff's lay testimony that she was incapacitated for two additional days, it necessarily follows that a material issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition.
Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp. (No. 08-4675)
Decision Date: April 8, 2010
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action claiming constructive discharge based on plaintiff's partial blindness, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where no reasonable juror could find that the actions to which plaintiff referred made her workplace so unbearable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the ADA contemplated that employers may need to make reasonable shift changes in order to accommodate a disabled employee's disability-related difficulties in getting to work.
Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot (No. 08-4684)
Decision Date: April 12, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against several federal government defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, arising from a voluntary layoff from employment at the Tobyhanna Army Depot, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) because plaintiff did not demonstrate that the medications that were causing his problems were medically necessary, their side effects cannot be considered as impairments within the meaning of the ADA; 2) plaintiff's employers did not regard him as disabled within the meaning of the ADA; and 3) plaintiff could not have had a good faith belief that his side effects were anything but temporary, and therefore he could not have had a good faith belief that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA.
Lozano v. City of Hazleton (No. 07-3531)
Decision Date: September 9, 2010
In plaintiffs' suit against the City of Hazleton to enjoin enforcement of ordinances that attempt to regulate employment of, and provision of rental housing to, certain aliens, district court's entry of permanent injunction against the city is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court erred in reaching the merits of the challenge to the private cause of action provision because no plaintiff has standing to challenge that provision; 2) the employment provisions of the ordinances stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of IRCA's objective, and thus are preempted; and 3) the housing provisions of the city's ordinances are preempted regulations of immigration, and both field and conflict preempted by the INA.
Miller v. American Airlines, Inc. (No. 10-1784 )
Decision Date: January 25, 2011
In a suit brought by a pilot alleging a violation of section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(1)(B), claiming that airline employer impermissibly terminated his long-term disability benefits, the grant of summary judgment for employer is reversed where the termination of benefits was arbitrary and capricious in light of the numerous substantive deficiencies and procedural irregularities that pervaded employer's decision-making process.
Leap Systems Inc v. Moneytrax Inc (No. 10-2965, 10-3107)
Decision Date: March 15, 2011
In a commercial dispute, district court's order denying motion by petitioner to unseal portions of a judicial record containing the terms of a confidential settlement agreement is affirmed, where, on balance, the privacy interest of plaintiff outweighs public interest in disclosure.
Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corporation (No. 10-3178)
Decision Date: August 31, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a class-action for relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. sections 207 and 216(b), judgment is reversed where a collective action brought under Section 216(b) does not become moot when, prior to moving for "conditional certification" and prior to any other plaintiff opting in to the suit, the putative representative receives a Rule 68 offer.
Meditz v. City of Newark (No. 10-2442)
Decision Date: September 28, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's challenge to defendant's residency requirement for its non-uniformed work force on summary adjudication, judgment is reversed because, on the record, summary judgment was inappropriate where complaint alleges that the adopted requirement has a disparate impact on white, non-Hispanics because Newark's population does not reflect the racial make-up of the relevant labor market in the surrounding area.
US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen (No. 10-3836 )
Decision Date: November 16, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of district court ordering full reimbursement of medical expenses under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA without allowance for legal costs, judgment is reversed and remanded where Section 502(a)(3) is subject to equitable limitations.
Chester v. Grane Health Care (No. 11-2573 )
Decision Date: December 7, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court concerning the standard for awarding interim injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, judgment is affirmed where the court correctly granted an interim bargaining order, but remanded for a determination of whether relief is appropriate under the Circuit's two-part test
Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (No. 10-4339)
Decision Date: January 4, 2012
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's state-law employment discrimination case, judgment is reversed where the court abused its discretion by dismissing complaint as a sanction for plaintiff's failure to produce originals of medical notes requested by the defendant
Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole (No. 10-3916)
Decision Date: January 31, 2012
In an employee's suit under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the district court's summary judgment in favor of the employee's supervisor is reversed, as: 1) the FMLA permits individual liability against supervisors at public agencies; and 2) the district court erred in holding that the supervisor was not an employer under the FMLA, where the record suggested that he exercised control over the conditions of the plaintiff's employment.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota
EEOC v. Siouxland Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Assoc. (No. 07-2419)
Decision Date: August 27, 2009
In an employment and sex discrimination case under Title VII, district court\'s judgment is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court erred in not submitting plaintiff\'s claim for punitive damages to the jury and granting defendant judgment as a matter of law on that claim as under Title VII, punitive damages are available if a plaintiff shows that the employer engaged in intentional discrimination with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights, and evidence presented by the EEOC at trial was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant acted in the face of a perceived risk that it was violating plaintiffs\' Title VII rights; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying EEOC\'s request for injunctive relief to enjoin defendant from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy or retaliating against any employee who complains of unlawful discrimination as, in light of the two isolated instances of discrimination, there was not a consistent practice of discrimination suggesting further discrimination was likely; 3) court declined to address the district court\'s award of attorney\'s fees at this time as further proceedings are necessary on the issue of punitive damages.
Rush v. Perryman (No. 08-3148)
Decision Date: September 3, 2009
In former college president's action against the college's Board of Trustees alleging violation of his state and federal statutory and constitutional rights, denial of defendant's motion for qualified immunity is affirmed where plaintiff's employment was terminated in an open session of the Board for alleged misconduct including dishonesty - an accepted stigmatizing charge - and thus, plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated a violation of his clearly established due process right to a post-termination name-clearing hearing.
Baker v. Silver Oak Senior Living Mgmt. Co. (No. 08-1036)
Decision Date: September 14, 2009
In an age discrimination action based on an alleged wrongful termination, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there was evidence that people who participated in the decision to terminate plaintiff evinced a preference for the employment of younger workers over persons in the class protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
White v. Nat'l Football League (No. 08-2001)
Decision Date: November 10, 2009
In a case involving whether, after NFL quarterback Michael Vick was convicted of dog fighting charges, his team was entitled to recover certain bonus money he earned, rulings against the NFL are affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected the NFL's argument that Vick's roster bonuses were signing bonus allocations subject to the years-performed test; and 2) it did not err in determining that the bonuses were earned when Vick met the roster provisions in his contract, and were thus not subject to forfeiture pursuant to the terms of a settlement in an antitrust class action and the CBA. Moreover, the denial of the NFL's motion to recuse the district judge and terminate the consent decree is affirmed where 1) there was no indication that the NFL was restrained by any fear of antitrust liability; 2) the parties' agreement to the district court's involvement mitigated concerns about unsettling the power structure under the labor laws; and 3) the district judge's comments to the press did not create an appearance of partiality.
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. (No. 07-1490)
Decision Date: November 30, 2009
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) action claiming that defendant demoted plaintiff because of his age, judgment for plaintiff is reversed where the burden of persuasion should not have been shifted to the defendant in this ADEA case considering that plaintiff never set forth any direct evidence of age discrimination, and the jury instruction at issue impermissibly shifted the burden in such a manner.
Lewis v. Heartland Inns of Am., L.L.C. (No. 08-3860)
Decision Date: January 21, 2010
In a sex discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff's supervisor's criticism of plaintiff for lack of "prettiness" and the "Midwestern girl look" before terminating her could be found by a reasonable factfinder to be evidence of wrongful sex stereotyping; and 2) the district court erred in requiring plaintiff to offer evidence that similarly situated men were treated differently.
Parrish v. Ball (No. 08-3517)
Decision Date: February 10, 2010
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a sheriff's alleged failure to provide sexual harassment training to a subordinate, judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) the Arkansas Code did not impose a duty on the county to train its officers not to sexually assault detainees; and 2) there was nothing in the record suggesting that defendant received any notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by any of his subordinates.
Parrish v. Ball (No. 08-3517)
Decision Date: February 10, 2010
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a sheriff's alleged failure to provide sexual harassment training to a subordinate, judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) the Arkansas Code did not impose a duty on the county to train its officers not to sexually assault detainees; and 2) there was nothing in the record suggesting that defendant received any notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by any of his subordinates.
Lake v. Yellow Transp., Inc. (No. 09-1392)
Decision Date: March 2, 2010
In a race discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant-employer is reversed where: 1) plaintiff was not required to disprove defendant's reason for firing him at the stage of the analysis where plaintiff needed to show that he met his employer's legitimate expectations; and 2) there were material factual disputes over plaintiff's attendance and availability record, and whether defendant applied its policies equally.
EEOC v. Kelly Servs., Inc. (No. 08-3880)
Decision Date: March 25, 2010
In an action by the EEOC alleging that defendant employment agency discriminated against a Muslim by failing to refer her to an employer because of her refusal to remove her khimar for work, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the EEOC failed to show that the employer had an available position to which defendant could actually refer the candidate when she applied for available temporary work.
Frevert v. Ford Motor Co. (No. 09-2531)
Decision Date: July 20, 2010
In an action against Ford Motor Company alleging wrongful discharge under the Missouri common law public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff's complaint never alleged a violation of a specific legal provision and whether such legal provision involved a clear mandate of public policy, and plaintiff's belated affidavit discussing alleged violations of law directly contradicted both his complaint and interrogatories.
Fuller v. Fiber Glass Sys., L.P. (No. 09-2732)
Decision Date: August 25, 2010
In an action under 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claiming discrimination (non-selection), harassment (supervisor and co-worker), and retaliation, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable juror could find that plaintiff did not unreasonably fail to take advantage of preventative/corrective opportunities offered by defendant, and thus defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense; 2) the testimony regarding plaintiff's emotional distress was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to award plaintiff $65,000 in compensatory damages; and 3) any issue with the magistrate judge presiding over the punitive damages portion of the trial was moot.
EEOC v. Con-Way Freight, Inc. (Nos. 09-2926, 09-2930)
Decision Date: September 22, 2010
In an action by the EEOC claiming that defendant failed to hire a prospective employee because of her race in violation of Title VII, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to infer that defendant did not have a policy of automatically disqualifying applicants with theft-related convictions, and a reasonable jury would conclude that such a policy existed.
Newberry v. Burlington Basket Co. (No. 09-3082)
Decision Date: September 28, 2010
In an action alleging that defendant violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) by terminating plaintiff's employment because of her age, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the jury's award of damages was supported by the finding of liability under the ICRA, and the incorrect statement of the law under the ADEA did not prejudice defendant; and 2) the district court expressly considered the factors relevant to determining a reasonable fee award under Iowa law, and made findings of fact regarding those factors.
Smith v. Hy-Vee, Inc. (No. 09-2631)
Decision Date: October 12, 2010
In an action for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's supervisor treated all employees, both male and female, in the same vulgar and inappropriate way; and 2) plaintiff effectively waived any objection to defendant's motion in limine.
Bonn v. City of Omaha (No. 09-3332)
Decision Date: October 19, 2010
In an action claiming that plaintiff was wrongfully terminated from her position as the Public Safety Auditor for the City of Omaha after she published a report criticizing the Omaha Police Department, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the evidence did not support a finding that plaintiff reasonably believed that she opposed an unlawful employment practice by publishing her report.
Appeals from federal circuit (intermediate appellate level) courts and original hearing for disputes between states
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs. (08-604)
Decision Date: December 8, 2009
In an arbitration before the National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB) between a railroad and a union regarding disciplinary action against certain employees, a circuit court's order reversing the NRAB's dismissal of the arbitration for failure to conduct a pre-arbitration conference is affirmed where, by refusing to adjudicate the cases on the false premise that it lacked jurisdiction to hear them, the NRAB panel failed to conform, or confine itself, to matters Congress placed within the scope of NRAB jurisdiction.
Lewis v. Chicago (No. 08-974)
Decision Date: May 24, 2010
In a Title VII action challenging Chicago's practice of selecting only applicants who scored 89 or above on a written examination because of its disparate impact on African-Americans, the Seventh Circuit's reversal of judgment for plaintiff is reversed where a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a practice may assert a disparate impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer's later application of that practice as long as he alleges each of the elements of a disparate impact claim.
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB (No. 08-1457)
Decision Date: June 17, 2010
In an appeal from the Seventh Circuit's denial of petitioners' petition for review of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) finding that petitioners committed unfair labor practices, the order is reversed where section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act requires that a delegee group of the NLRB maintain a membership of three in order to exercise the delegated authority of the Board.
Rent-A-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson (No. 09-497)
Decision Date: June 21, 2010
In an employment discrimination action, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the district court's dismissal of the action based on the parties' agreement to arbitrate is reversed where, under the Federal Arbitration Act, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine the enforceability of the agreement, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge, but if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator.
NASA v. Nelson (No. 09-530)
Decision Date: January 19, 2011
In an action claiming that NASA's National Agency Check with Inquiries background check process violated a constitutional right to informational privacy, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is reversed where, assuming, without deciding, that the government's challenged inquiries implicated a privacy interest of constitutional significance, that interest, whatever its scope, did not prevent the government from asking reasonable questions of the sort included on the forms at issue in an employment background investigation that was subject to the Privacy Act's safeguards against public disclosure.
Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP (No. 09-291)
Decision Date: January 24, 2011
In an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by a man claiming he was fired by his employer in retaliation for his fiancee's filing of an EEOC complaint against the same employer, the Sixth Circuit's affirmance of District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of employer are reversed and remanded where: 1) if the facts the worker alleges are true, his firing constituted unlawful retaliation; and 2) Title VII grants worker a cause of action.
Staub v. Proctor Hospital (No. 09-400)
Decision Date: March 1, 2011
In dispute involving the scope of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), if a supervisor performs an act motivated by anti-military animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then employer is liable under USERRA.
CIGNA Corp. v. Amara (09-804 )
Decision Date: May 16, 2011
In an ERISA dispute involving the District Court's authority to reform a pension plan, judgment of the appeals court is reversed where although ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B) did not give the District Court authority to reform petitioner's plan, equitable relief may be fashioned from section 502(a)(3).
CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride (No. 10-235)
Decision Date: June 23, 2011
In a dispute concerning the appropriate causation instruction to give the jury in a claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), judgment of the appeals court is affirmed where consistent with the FELA's text and purpose, Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., and the uniform view of the federal appellate courts, FELA does not incorporate stock proximate cause instruction standards developed in nonstatutory common-law tort actions
Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (No. 10-277)
Decision Date: June 20, 2011
In an action by current or former employees of petitioner Wal-Mart, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and backpay, on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of some 1.5 million female employees, because of Wal-Mart's alleged discrimination against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the certification of the class and backpay claims are reversed where: 1) certification of the plaintiff class was not consistent with Rule 23(a); and 2) respondents' backpay claims were improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(2).
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid (No. 10-507)
Decision Date: January 11, 2012
In an appeal from a judgment of the appeals court vacating an administrative dismissal of respondent's Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) claim for benefits as a surviving spouse, judgment is affirmed where a claimant seeking benefits under the OCSLA must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and extractive operations on the shelf.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
Alaniz v. Zamora-Quezada (No. 07-40325)
Decision Date: December 24, 2009
In an action alleging sex discrimination against the director of certain medical clinics, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the evidence of defendant's harassment of other parties was highly probative to demonstrating a systemic pattern of discrimination at the clinics and relevant to all plaintiffs; and 2) the court of appeals could not conclude that the hearsay testimony admitted by the district court had more than a slight effect on the jury's verdict. However, the judgment is reversed in part where one plaintiff's placement on a two-week probationary period did not rise to the level of a tangible employment action.
Carmona v. Southwest Airlines Co. (No. 08-51175)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
In an action claiming that the termination of plaintiff's employment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), partial judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that plaintiff was an "individual with a disability" within the meaning of the ADA, because there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that he had an impairment, psoriatic arthritis, that substantially limited his major life activity of walking; 2) there was sufficient evidence that defendant's own actions reflected that attendance on scheduled days was not required to qualify for the position of flight attendant; and 3) a reasonable jury could have found defendant's proffered explanation for plaintiff's discharge was false and that the true reason was his disability.
Carmona v. Southwest Airlines Co. (No. 08-51175)
Decision Date: April 22, 2010
In an action claiming that the termination of plaintiff's employment violated Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), judgment as a matter of law for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that he was substantially limited in the major life activity of walking; and 2) there was no dispute that plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions of his job as a flight attendant when he showed up to work. In addition, the district court's order denying reinstatement is vacated in light of the Fifth Circuit's holding that it was error to grant defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Gagnon v. United Technisource Inc. (No. 09-20098)
Decision Date: May 28, 2010
In an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) based on defendants' failure to increase plaintiff's "per diem" hourly rate, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) when, as here, the amount of per diem varies with the amount of hours worked, the per diem payments are part of the regular rate in their entirety; 2) there was no clear error in the district court's finding that the violation was willful; and 3) in paying the per diem, defendant did not pay plaintiff any additional sums that could be characterized as advanced or inappropriate amounts subject to an offset against the overtime owed to him. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to provide additional explanation for its awards and with specific instructions to include time spent on this appeal in determining the amount of attorney's fees.
Startran, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Comm. (No. 09-60263)
Decision Date: June 9, 2010
In a petition for review of a determination by the Occupational Safety and Health Commission (the Commission) that petitioner was not exempt from the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) under the provision of 29 U.S.C. section 652(5) stating that for purposes of the Act "'employer' . . . does not include . . . any . . . political subdivision of a State," the petition is granted where, under 29 C.F.R. section 1975.5(b)(2), petitioner was "administered by individuals who are controlled by public officials and responsible to such officials" and was thus exempt from OSHA.
Saenz v. Harlingen Med. Ctr., L.P. (No. 09-40887)
Decision Date: August 3, 2010
In a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) action based on plaintiff's alleged termination due to her epilepsy, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the district court erred when it held plaintiff to defendant's heightened in-house procedure, and further, plaintiff provided the minimum required notice under FMLA's default requirements.
Castellanos-Contreras v. Decatur Hotels LLC (No. 07-30942)
Decision Date: October 4, 2010
In a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action claiming that defendant-employer was required to reimburse plaintiffs for their travel expenses, visa fees, and recruitment payments during their first week of work, a denial of summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) the FLSA did not require the reimbursement of the travel expenses; and 2) the FLSA did not require defendant to reimburse plaintiffs for the fees they paid to the various job placement firms.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia
Stone v. Instrumentation Lab. Co. (No. 08-1970)
Decision Date: December 31, 2009
In an employment retaliation action under the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, grant of defendant's motion to dismiss in favor of remand to the appropriate administrative body for further proceedings is vacated and remanded as the plain language of section 1514A(b)(1)(B) unambiguously establishes a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower complainant's right to de novo review in federal district court if the Department of Labor has not issued a final decision and the statutory 180-day period has expired
Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc. (No. 08-2256)
Decision Date: December 29, 2009
In an action brought by employees and their union against a poultry processing plant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), judgment of the district court in favor of defendant is affirmed as the activity of donning and doffing protective gear constitutes "changing clothes" within the meaning of section 203(o) and is therefore not compensable under the prevailing customs or practices at the plant.
King v. McMillan (No. 08-1667)
Decision Date: February 3, 2010
In plaintiff-former deputy's suit against a sheriff in his official capacity under Title VII for sexual harassment and in his individual capacity under Virginia law for battery, district court's substitution of new sheriff as the defendant in her official capacity in the Title VII claim and jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed as to accept defendant's argument that because each sheriff in Virginia is by state law a singular entity with an independent tenure, she could not be substituted in her official capacity as the successor to the former sheriff in the Title VII claim, would be to allow a state law to override Title VII in violation of the Supremacy Clause. Defendants' remaining challenges are rejected.
Whitten v. Fred's, Inc. (No. 09-1265)
Decision Date: April 1, 2010
In plaintiff's claims against her former employer for sexual harassment under the South Carolina Human Affairs Law, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff properly exhausted the state administrative remedies; 2) plaintiff's lawsuit was timely filed; 3) judicial estoppel does not preclude plaintiff from pursuing her claims against defendant because she disclosed her potential claim against the defendant in her bankruptcy petition; 4) plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to require a trial on her sexual harassment claims, including her claim that she was constructively discharged; and 5) on remand, the defendant will be entitled to assert the affirmative defense to liability and damages as set forth by the Supreme Court in Faragher and Ellerth as, although defendant is subject to vicarious liability for the supervisor's conduct, there was no tangible employment action and no official act precipitating the asserted constructive discharge.
Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (No. 09-1498)
Decision Date: April 9, 2010
In a suit brought after plaintiff-truck driver was terminated from her employment claiming sex discrimination under Title VII when defendant allegedly fired her due to a discriminatory belief that women were incapable of performing the duties of her position, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where plaintiff presented a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant's proffered legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for her termination (failing a physical ability test following an ankle injury) was "pretext for discrimination."
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Fairbrook Med. Clinic, P.A. ( No. 09-1610)
Decision Date: June 18, 2010
In an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) suit on behalf of plaintiff-doctor against her former employer for creating a hostile work environment because of plaintiff's sex, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed and remanded as the EEOC has presented an issue of triable fact as what happened was not merely general crudity but a series of graphic remarks of a highly personal nature directed at a female employee by the sole owner of an establishment.
Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals (No. 09-1582 )
Decision Date: November 10, 2010
In an African-American plaintiff's suit against Maryland Court of Appeals and individual defendants for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the FLMA, claiming that he was fired for requesting sick leave because he is black, district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is affirmed where: 1) district court correctly concluded that the complaint failed to state a Title VII race discrimination claim; 2) district court correctly ruled that plaintiff failed to state a Title VII retaliation claim as no facts in the complaint identify any protected activity by plaintiff that prompted the retaliation of which he complains; 3) district court properly dismissed plaintiff's FMLA claim as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Mann v. Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc. (No. 09-1847)
Decision Date: December 27, 2010
In plaintiff's retaliation action against his former employer under the False Claims Act, claiming that defendant took adverse employment action against him because he investigated and opposed defendant's attempts to defraud the United States, in connection with defendant's bid in response to the Secret Service's contract solicitation for rifles, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as plaintiff's actions fall outside the scope of FCA protection as the FCA shields employees from retaliation when they oppose fraud, and here, the conduct plaintiff opposed involved nothing more than non-fraudulent statements made by defendant during the course of a contractual bidding process.
Desmond v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming (No. 09-2189)
Decision Date: January 14, 2011
In plaintiffs' suit against their former employer for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), district court's judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the district court's method of computing unpaid overtime compensation is affirmed as, in Overnight Motor, the Court recognized that employees and employers are free to agree to a reduced hourly wage in exchange for a fixed weekly salary, provided the fixed weekly salary covers all hours worked and meets minimum wage requirements, and here, the former employees agreed to receive straight time pay for all hours worked in a given workweek and have already received such pay; but 2) the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of willfulness as a genuine issue of material fact exists as to willfulness.
Steel Erectors Association of Am. v. Occupational Safety and Health Admin. (No. 09-2319)
Decision Date: February 17, 2011
Petition for review of an OSHA ruling is dismissed where the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter, as a 2010 directive stating that violations of certain standards would be considered de minimis, and would therefore carry no penalty, if employers took different precautionary measures, is more accurately viewed as a description of the agency's new enforcement policy and not a "standard", which would permit review.
Purdham v. Fairfax County School Board (No. 10-1048)
Decision Date: March 10, 2011
In a labor and employment action alleging defendant failed to pay plaintiff overtime wages, 29 U.S.C section 201 et seq., summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the defendant properly deemed plaintiff a volunteer.
Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. (No. 09-2029)
Decision Date: March 22, 2011
In a dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Act), 29 U.S.C. section 213(a)(1), judgment of the district court is affirmed where plaintiff falls within the executive exemption to the Act because even though she regularly performed nonexecutive tasks, she was the highest level employee of defendant and her income was performance and profit-based.
Adams v. The Trustees of UNCW (No. 10-1413)
Decision Date: April 6, 2011
In a Title VII action alleging retaliation, religious and speech-based discrimination in relation to the decision not to promote plaintiff to the position of full professor, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where district court properly held that plaintiff failed to satisfy his burdens under both Hill v. Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas, but erred in its McVey analysis of the First Amendment claim.
EEOC v. Xerxes Corporation (No. 10-1156)
Decision Date: April 26, 2011
In a Title VII action alleging a hostile work environment on the basis on race, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed in part and vacated in part because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant had notice of alleged racial slurs and pranks in the workplace prior to February 2006 but failed to respond with any remedial action.
Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc. (No. 09-1917 )
Decision Date: June 7, 2011
In a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) dispute, 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et seq., judgment of the district court in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) under the FLSA, time spent donning and doffing protective gear at the beginning and the end of each workday is compensable, while mid-shift donning and doffing is not; and 2) defendant's violations were not willful, thus triggering only a two-year statute of limitations for claims for back pay.
Quesenberry v. Volvo Trucks North America (No. 10-1491)
Decision Date: July 11, 2011
In a dispute involving whether a collective bargaining agreement permitted defendant to make unilateral changes to the health benefits of retirees from its assembly plant after the agreement expired, judgment of the district court in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where defendant is prohibited from such modifications unless it followed the mechanism agreed to by both parties in the agreement, which it failed to do.
Okoli v. City of Baltimore (No. 08-2198)
Decision Date: August 9, 2011
In a Title VII action for harassment and retaliation, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed where plaintiff's allegations that her boss forcibly kissed her, fondled her leg, propositioned her, asked sexually explicit questions, described sexual activities he wished to perform, and then, after she spurned the advances and filed a harassment complaint, fired her are sufficient to sustain claims of hostile work environment, quid pro quo harassment, and retaliation.
West Virginia CWP Fund v. Stacy (No. 11-1020 )
Decision Date: December 7, 2011
In a challenge to an administrative order conferring benefits on a surviving spouse under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, order is upheld where under Section 422(l) of the BLBA, a surviving spouse is automatically entitled to benefits without having to establish that the miner's death was due to pneumoconiosis
Bullock v. Napolitano (No.10-1222)
Decision Date: January 23, 2012
In racial discrimination action against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, originally filed in a North Carolina state court and removed to federal court, the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the United States and the Secretary of Homeland Security did not consent to be sued in a North Carolina state court under Title VII; and 2) removal to federal court, under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, did not cure that jurisdictional defect. Read more...
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
Myers v. Central Fla. Invs., Inc. (No. 08-16291)
Decision Date: January 6, 2010
In a battery and sexual harassment action, partial judgment for plaintiff and for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show that the compensatory award for emotional damages equal to a claimant's annual income evinced prejudice, passion or corruption on the part of the jury; 2) the $506,847.75 punitive award bore a reasonable relationship both to the harm plaintiff suffered and to the harm likely to result should defendants not be penalized now; and 3) plaintiff was not a prevailing party on her Title VII claim and thus was not entitled to attorney's fees.
Harrison v. Benchmark Elecs. Huntsville, Inc. (No. 08-16656)
Decision Date: January 12, 2010
In an action claiming that defendant-employer made an improper medical inquiry in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) 42 U.S.C. section 12112(d)(2) did not limit coverage to applicants who were also "qualified individuals with disabilities"; and 2) while the district court correctly concluded that employers may conduct follow-up questioning in response to a positive drug test, it failed to acknowledge any limits on this type of questioning.
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (No. 07-10270)
Decision Date: January 21, 2010
In a hostile work environment action based on the frequent use of gender derogatory language addressed specifically to women as a group in the workplace, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the evidence was sufficient to afford the inference that the offending conduct was based on the sex of the employee.
Mora v. Jackson Mem. Found., Inc. (No. 08-16113)
Decision Date: February 23, 2010
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act action, summary judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded where a reasonable juror could accept that plaintiff's supervisor made discriminatory-sounding remarks and that the remarks were sufficient evidence of a discriminatory motive which was the "but for" cause of plaintiff's dismissal.
Abel v. S. Shuttle Servs., Inc. (No. 10-10659)
Decision Date: September 21, 2010
In an action alleging violations of the overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by an airport shuttle driver, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant's airport shuttle van drivers fell under the Motor Carrier Act exemption in 29 U.S.C. section 213(b)(1).
Dixon v. The Hallmark Cos. (No. 10-10047)
Decision Date: December 10, 2010
In an action alleging claims of religious discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate religious beliefs in violation of Title VII, and retaliation and housing discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiffs called attention to no statutory or case law that could reasonably be believed to prohibit a private employer from keeping its own workplace free of religious references. However, the order is vacated in part where, drawing inferences in favor of plaintiffs, as is required at this stage, a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff's supervisor's alleged comment constituted direct evidence of religious discrimination.
Diaz v. Jaguar Restaurant Group, LLC (No. 09-16046)
Decision Date: December 13, 2010
In an action against plaintiff's former employer for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the district court's holding that plaintiff was an exempt administrative employee under the FLSA is reversed and the matter is remanded for a trial on damages where the administrative exemption issue was not tried by implied consent as plaintiff's testimony was relevant to another defense in this case: defendant's independent contractor defense.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in the District of Columbia
Miller v. Hersman (No. 08-5494)
Decision Date: February 5, 2010
In a sex and age discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) defendant failed to carry its burden to show that plaintiff did not timely contact an EEO counselor and thus did not exhaust his administrative remedies; and 2) plaintiff did not fail to respond to defendant's exhaustion argument.
Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (No. 08-7115)
Decision Date: February 16, 2010
In an action against an accounting firm alleging that the firm refused to make plaintiffs partners because of their ages, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff did not make out a claim under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act because he failed to bring a claim involving \"discrimination in compensation\" and point to a \"discriminatory compensation decision or other practice\"; and 2) plaintiff failed to provide any basis upon which a reasonable jury could disbelieve defendant\'s primary explanation for not making him a partner. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiff could state a claim under the New York Human Rights Law by alleging that a discriminatory act occurred in New York.
Pardo-Kronemann v. Donovan (No. 08-5155)
Decision Date: April 16, 2010
In an action by an attorney at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging that HUD retaliated against him in violation of Title VII by transferring him to a non-legal position and by declaring him absent without leave when he failed to report to his new job, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where defendant reasonably concluded that approving plaintiff's leave under the circumstances would set a bad precedent for other employees. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) a reasonable jury to question plaintiff's supervisor's credibility and therefore the legitimacy of HUD's proffered reason for the transfer; and 2) a reasonable jury could conclude that the transfer qualified as an adverse employment action.
McFadden v. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP (No. 08-7140)
Decision Date: June 29, 2010
In an action against a law firm alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1981, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court correctly held that plaintiff produced insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to hold pretextual defendant's proffered non-discriminatory reasons for not reassigning her and for terminating her. However, the judgment is reversed in part where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff was prejudiced by the alleged interference with her FMLA rights.
Mogenhan v. Napolitano (No. 08-5457)
Decision Date: July 27, 2010
In an action against the Secret Service claiming that it violated the Rehabilitation Act by retaliating against plaintiff for filing a discrimination complaint and by failing to reasonably accommodate her disability, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where there was no genuine dispute that the Service reasonably accommodated plaintiff's disability. However, the ruling is reversed in part on the ground that the retaliatory actions plaintiff alleged might well have dissuaded a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.
Payne v. Salazar (No. 09-5291)
Decision Date: September 7, 2010
In an action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, dismissal of the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is affirmed in part where the district court properly held that plaintiff failed to exhaust one of her claims. However, the order is reversed in part where an employee's right to trial de novo -- whether her employer is the federal government or a private company -- means that she is entitled to a plenary trial of whatever claims she brings to court, and it does not mean that she must sue on claims she has no interest in pursuing.
Ford v. Mabus (No. 09-5041)
Decision Date: December 10, 2010
In an action by a federal government employee, alleging discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), judgment for defendant is reversed where, because of what the court had called ADEA section 633a\'s \"sweeping\" language --\"all [federal government] personnel actions . . . shall be made free from any discrimination based on age\"-- plaintiffs may establish liability, though not necessarily entitlement to such remedies as reinstatement and backpay, by showing that consideration of age was a factor in the challenged personnel action.
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (No. S174475)
Decision Date: February 24, 2011
In a labor dispute involving Labor Code section 98 et seq., California Supreme Court holds that a provision in an arbitration agreement requiring waiver of by an employee of his right to a Berman hearing as a condition of employment is unconscionable and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
Motheral v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (No. C063646)
Decision Date: August 25, 2011
In a petition for review of a judgment of the defendant-Board denying reconsideration of an administrative decision calculating petitioner's disability benefits based solely on his full-time employment at minimum wage, Lab. Code section 4653, judgment is reversed where section 4454 mandates the inclusion of the market value of petitioner's living quarters, utilities, and car allowance.
Chan v. Judicial Council (No. B224332)
Decision Date: September 15, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court granting summary adjudication in respondent's favor in an action alleging that respondent violated appellants' due process and equal protection rights by requiring that they pass new rigorous certifying exams in order to remain court interpreters and by allowing certain interpreters to be exclusively grandfathered in or temporarily exempted from these new certifying exams, judgment is affirmed where: 1)appellants' due process claim fails because there is no protectable property interest in being a certified interpreter; 2) appellants' equal protection cause of action cannot be established because they were not similarly situated to the exempted interpreters; and 3) appellants are not entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief.
Nicholas Laboratories, LLC v. Chen (No. G044105 )
Decision Date: October 12, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying defendant-former employee\'s claim for statutory and/or contractual indemnification after prevailing in an action by his former employer, judgment is affirmed where: 1) Labor Code section 2802 does not require an employer to reimburse its employee for attorney fees incurred in the employee\'s successful defense of the employer\'s action; and 2) Corporations Code section 317 does not apply to limited liability companies.
Brennan v. Townsend & O'Leary Enterprises, Inc. (No. G042398)
Decision Date: October 18, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court granting defendant's motion for JNOV in plaintiff's action for hostile work environment, judgment is affirmed where insufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that plaintiff was subjected to severe or pervasive harassment based on her gender
Molina v. Board of Administration, California Public Employee's Retirement System (No. BS121118)
Decision Date: September 29, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying a petition to include in petitioner's retirement pension certain proceeds from the settlement of a wrongful termination action, judgment is affirmed where under the explicit language of the settlement agreement, the proceeds constitute neither "payrate" nor "special compensation" and therefore are not taken as "compensation earnable."
Vogt v. Herron Construction, Inc. (No. E052434 )
Decision Date: November 1, 2011
In a tort and injury action for respondeat superior liability, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed where the court erred in holding that employee had not been acting in the course and scope of his employment when he ran over plaintiff with his personal truck while accommodating a construction site request to move the truck.
County of Kern v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd (No. F057718 )
Decision Date: October 31, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court affirming an administrative decision in a claim for worker's compensation, judgment is affirmed where a volunteer firefighter with a local nonprofit firefighting organization was a county employee for purposes of workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3361.1.
Jaramillo v. County of Orange (No. G043142 )
Decision Date: November 8, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court awarding plaintiff backpay for the period between his summary dismissal and his plea of no contest to two felony counts, judgment is affirmed where summary termination without notice, or the opportunity for an administrative appeal, violated the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA), and because the court correctly denied preclusive effect to either the felony convictions or certain waivers plaintiff signed purporting to waiving POBRA protections
Retired Employees Assn. v. Co. of Orange (No. S184059)
Decision Date: November 21, 2011
In a certified question to the Court, question is answered as follows: under California law, a county and its employees can form an implied contract that confers vested rights to health benefits on retired county employees if there is no legislative prohibition against such arrangements, such as a statute or ordinance.
Sky Sports, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hogan) (No. B233820 )
Decision Date: December 15, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court finding that petitioner has waived its right to compel arbitration in a labor and employment class action lawsuit, judgment is reversed where the Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.21 requirements to compel arbitration were not satisfied until the class was certified, and therefore, any purported delay in bringing a motion to compel arbitration does not constitute a waiver of the right
SEIU Local 1021 v. San Joaquin County (No. C066861 )
Decision Date: December 28, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration in an action for wrongful termination, judgment is reversed where: 1) the parties agreed to arbitrate; and 2) real-party's application for retirement benefits while the parties were selecting an arbitrator did not constitute a waiver of the right to arbitrate.
Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.) (No. S156555 )
Decision Date: December 29, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the appeals court reversing the trial court's order partially decertifying plaintiffs' class and denying their motion for summary adjudication, judgment is reversed where plaintiff-insurance adjusters are not exempted from overtime compensation requirements.
Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp. (No. B227486)
Decision Date: January 18, 2012
In a class action alleging wage and hour violations in which the plaintiffs also sought statutory penalties as a representative enforcement action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint is reversed, where: 1) the sustaining of the demurrer to the class action allegations based on collateral estoppel was error, as the plaintiffs, who were unnamed putative class members in a similar previous action against the defendants, were not bound by collateral estoppel with respect to any issue decided in connection with the denial of class certification in that action; and 2) the dismissal of the plaintiffs' individual claims and representative claims under PAGA was error, as the trial court did not address those claims and the defendants conceded there was no basis to dismiss them.
Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles (B226685)
Decision Date: January 23, 2012
In a Fair Employment and Housing Act suit alleging that the plaintiff's termination was in retaliation for filing a sexual harassment complaint against a coworker, judgment in favor of the plaintiff is reversed, where the plaintiff did not present substantial evidence that his termination was motivated by retaliatory animus. Read more...
Appeals from Merit Systems Protection Board and other federal agencies
Romero v. Department of Defense (No. 2010-3137 )
Decision Date: October 3, 2011
In a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Merits affirming the removal of petitioner from his position as a Department of Defense (DoD) auditor for failing to maintain his Secret level security clearance, decision is affirmed where the DoD complied with its internal procedures in revoking petitioner's security clearance.
Bledsoe v. Merit Systems Protections Board (No. 2011-3054 )
Decision Date: October 3, 2011
In a petition for review of a decision of the Merits Board dismissing petitioner's appeal that the Postal Services wrongly denied her restoration following partial recovery from a compensable injury, 5 C.F.R. section 353.304(c), decision is affirmed because petitioner failed to establish that the Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously and thus entitled her to a jurisdictional hearing
Ford-Clifton v. Department of Veterans Affairs (No. 2011-3103)
Decision Date: October 19, 2011
In an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing petitioner's application for review of an administrative denial of her claim for relief after she was removed from a long-held employment position, judgment is affirmed where: 1) petitioner failed to show good cause for her untimely application; and 2) a settlement agreement between the parties operates as a res judicata bar.
Jarrard v. DOJ (No. 2011-3050)
Decision Date: January 13, 2012
In consolidated suits by a preference-eligible veteran who was passed over for hiring as an attorney at the Social Security Administration and the Department of Justice, the Merit Systems Protection Board's denial of the veteran's request for corrective action under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 is affirmed, as it is was not administratively feasible to apply the veterans' "passover provisions" of 5 USC section 3318 to attorney hiring in the excepted service, and thus the Board did not err in concluding that the agencies were exempt from the provisions of 5 USC section 3318 and were not required to file written reasons with the Office of Personnel Management and seek its permission before selecting candidates other than the plaintiff.
