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 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.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island
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.
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.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zakrzewska v. The New School (No. 09-0611)
Decision Date: July 27, 2009
Question of whether the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense to employer liability applies to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under the New York City Human Rights Law is certified to the New York Court of Appeals where the issue was appropriate for certification because of the absence of authoritative state court decisions, the importance of the issue to the state, and the capacity of certification to resolve this litigation.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virgin Islands
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia
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.
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.
EEOC v. Central Wholesalers, Inc. (No. 08-1181)
Decision Date: July 21, 2009
In a Title VII action by the EEOC claiming that defendant subjected an employee to a hostile work environment based on her gender and race, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the EEOC, would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the harassment was: 1) unwelcome; 2) based on plaintiff's gender or race; 3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive atmosphere; and 4) imputable to defendant.
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.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dobrowski v. Jay Dee Contractors, Inc. (No. 08-1806)
Decision Date: July 8, 2009
In a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) action alleging that Defendant terminated Plaintiff because he took leave under the FMLA, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed where equitable estoppel did not bar Defendant from raising non-eligibility as a defense to Plaintiff's FMLA claim.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Valentino v. Village of South Chicago Heights (No. 06-3882)
Decision Date: July 30, 2009
In an action for First Amendment retaliation and retaliatory discharge, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established a prima facie case for retaliation and presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that defendants' stated reason for terminating her employment was pretextual; 2) plaintiff's Monell claim may proceed to trial as plaintiff has shown that the mayor was the final policymaker for defendant, such that defendant may be held liable if the jury finds that the mayor and village administrator retaliated against her in violation of her First Amendment rights; and 3) defendant is not entitled to immunity under the the Illinois Tort Immunity Act from plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim as the decision to fire her did not amount to a policy decision as defined by the Illinois courts.
Casna v. City of Loves Park (No. 07-1044)
Decision Date: July 24, 2009
In an employment termination brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff is entitled to proceed to trial on her due-process claim as she had a property interest in continuing employment and defendant deprived her of it without a hearing; and 2) an informal complaint may constitute protected activity for purposes of retaliation claims under the ADA; and 3) there is a triable issue as to whether the employer initiated plaintiff's discharge because she had just protested her supervisor's possibly discriminatory attitude or because her work performance was inadequate.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Winspear v. Community Development, Inc. (No. 08-2041)
Decision Date: July 29, 2009
In an employment discrimination action, district court judgment is reversed where the court erred in treating plaintiff's hostile work environment claim as one for constructive discharge. The matter is remanded for further proceedings on the hostile work environment discrimination claim.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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).
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.
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.
Mevorah v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (No. 08-15355)
Decision Date: July 7, 2009
In a class action alleging failure to pay overtime brought by current and former Wells Fargo home mortgage consultants, the District Court's order certifying a class is reversed where the District Court abused its discretion by relying on Defendant's uniform policy of treating its employees as exempt from overtime laws, to the near exclusion of other relevant factors touching on predominance.
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.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
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.
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.
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.
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.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in the District of Columbia
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.
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.
Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (No. 07-5320)
Decision Date: July 31, 2009
In an employment discrimination action against the U.S. Capitol Police, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where the Capitol Police's administrative appeal process is jurisdictional and thus equitable doctrines, such as vicarious exhaustion, do not apply to excuse compliance with it. However the ruling is reversed in part where: 1) neither the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) nor the procedural rules of the Office of Compliance require in-person attendance by the employee at counseling or mediation; and 2) receipt of written notice of the end of mediation from the Office of Compliance triggered the CAA's 30 to 90-day period for electing whether to pursue judicial or administrative relief and demonstrated the employee's completion of counseling and mediation.
Appeals from Merit Systems Protection Board and other federal agencies
Erickson v. US Postal Service (No. 08-3216)
Decision Date: July 15, 2009
In an action brought by a former postal service employee under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), Merit Systems Protection Board judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the Board erred in rejecting plaintiff's claim of unlawful discrimination based on his military service as plaintiff's cumulative military absence at the time of his removal did not exceed five years and thus he retained employment rights under USERRA; 2) the Board properly held that plaintiff failed to make a timely application for reemployment under USERRA and thus defendant did not unlawfully refuse to reemploy him after his service; and 3) the case is remanded so that the Board can explicitly address whether plaintiff waived his USERRA rights by abandoning his civilian career to pursue one in the military.
