FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Labor Law

Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Rights, Evidence, Labor & Employment Law) In plaintiff's suit for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation, district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where, for substantially the same reasons as the court indicated below, the record reveals no significant evidentiary basis for the verdict.

Murthy v. Vilsack

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Administrative Law, Agriculture, Civil Rights, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an action by an ex-employee against the Secretary of Agriculture for breach of the terms of a settlement agreement and for non-selection to a GS-15 position in violation of Title VII, an order partially transferring the action and partially granting summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the filing of an amended complaint after the 180-day waiting period expired could not cure the failure to exhaust; and 2) res judicata would not bar the filing of a new Title VII non-selection civil action after he exhausted his EEOC remedies.

Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Evidence, Labor & Employment Law, Remedies) In plaintiff's Title VII suit against her former employer for being fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment by residents of defendant's nursing home, district court's denial of defendant's motions for a new trial and remittitur are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that her complaints caused defendant to fire her; 2) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial on the basis of plaintiff's counsel's closing arguments; 3) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the compensatory damages as enough evidence supported a jury award of $25,000, which is well within the $200,000 cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3)(C); and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the punitive damage award and the logic of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) does not apply to this Title VII case.

Kemp v. Holder

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Rights, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an action for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act arising from the termination of plaintiff's employment as a federal court security officer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he had a "disability," as that term is defined under the ADA.

Ruiz v. Cty. of Rockland

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Rights, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an action against a county for national origin and race discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff was not qualified for his position based on evidence of plaintiff's misconduct; but 2) plaintiff failed to raise an inference of discrimination.

Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l. Brotherhood of Teamsters

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S.S.C., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Labor & Employment Law) In an action against a labor union by an employer, invoking federal jurisdiction under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), seeking strike-related damages for the unions' alleged breach of contract, and asking for an injunction against the ongoing strike because the hold-harmless dispute was an arbitrable grievance under the new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Ninth Circuit's partial affirmance of the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's tortious interference claims and denying defendant's separate motion to send the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date to arbitration is affirmed in part where the Ninth Circuit did not err in declining to recognize a new federal common-law cause of action under LMRA section 301(a) for defendant's alleged tortious interference with the CBA. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date was a matter for the district court, not an arbitrator, to resolve.

Bifulco v. Patient Bus. & Fin. Serv., Inc.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Fla., Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law, Workers' Compensation) In plaintiff's wrongful termination suit against her former employer, Fifth District's reversal of trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as workers' compensation retaliation claims brought against the state under section 440.205 are not subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6)

Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, ERISA, Labor & Employment Law) In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the order is affirmed where: 1) district courts must consider the Hummell factors after they have determined that a litigant has achieved "some degree of success on the merits,"; but 2) even assuming plaintiff achieved some degree of success on the merits, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that fees are nonetheless inappropriate after applying the Hummell factors.

Durakovic v. Bldg. Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., ERISA, Health Law, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an ERISA challenge to a union disability-benefits denial, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) a fund organized pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 186(c)(5) is conflicted within the meaning of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008); 2) the district court should have accorded the conflict in this case more weight; and 3) no rational trier of fact could have failed to conclude that the benefits denial was arbitrary and capricious.

Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Assoc. Inc.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor & Employment Law) In a suit brought by about 4000 current and former employees against an employer, claiming that the company, which provides security guard services throughout Southern California, denied meal and rest breaks and failed to pay for overtime, trial court's denial of their motion for class certification is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) order denying the motion for class certification as to the meal break class and the rest break class is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding common issues of law and fact did not predominate over individual issues; and 2) order denying the motion for class certification as to the overtime-pay class is reversed and remanded.

Baker v. Am. Horticulture Supply, Inc.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(Cal. App., Contracts, Labor & Employment Law, Remedies, Wholesale) In an independent wholesale sales representative's suit for breach of contract, promissory fraud, and a violation under the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on the breach of contract and promissory fraud claims in concluding that the award of damages was excessive and that plaintiff was not entitled to a 10% commission in alleged sales; and 2) trial court's grant of defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the violation of the Act claim is reversed as the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant willfully failed to enter into a written contract as required by the Act.

Edwards v. A.H. Cornell & Son, Inc.

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 3d Cir., Administrative Law, ERISA, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law) In plaintiff's suit against her employers and supervisors, claiming that she was terminated in violation of section 510 of ERISA and state common law after complaining to management about alleged ERISA violations, district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed as unsolicited internal complaints are not protected activities under the anti-retaliation provision of section 510 of ERISA.

EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co.

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Indian Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an action by the EEOC alleging that, in maintaining its employment preference for Navajo workers, defendant discriminated against non-Navajo Indians, including two members of the Hopi Nation and one member of the Otoe tribe, in violation of Title VII, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) the amended complaint filed by the EEOC after remand did not render it infeasible to join the Navajo Nation; 2) the Secretary of the Interior was a required party under Rule 19(a), and joining him was not feasible; 3) plaintiff could not bring a third-party damages claim against the Secretary under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a), and that EEOC's claim against defendant for damages must therefore be dismissed under Rule 19(b); and 4) plaintiff could bring a third-party claim against the Secretary for prospective relief under Rule 14(a), and therefore EEOC's injunctive claim against defendant should be allowed to proceed.

Jones v. Nat'l. Am. Univ.

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Rights, Education Law, Evidence, Labor & Employment Law) In an action alleging that a university failed to promote plaintiff in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that certain witnesses' testimony was sufficient authentication to admit an exhibit; 2) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that defendant's proffered reason for the failure to promote was a pretext for age discrimination; and 3) the district court properly instructed the jury on plaintiff's burden under her ADEA claim, including her burden to prove that defendant's proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the failure to promote was pretext for age discrimination.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. US Airways Group

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 4th Cir., Aerospace & Defense, Contracts, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law, Transportation, Travel & Leisure) In an airline pilots union's suit to establish and arbitrate before a multi-employer, multi-union board of adjustment, district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed as plaintiff's claim is foreclosed by the plain language of section 204 of the Railway Labor Act, which permits but does not require such a board adjustment, and plaintiff's alternative state law claim is meritless.