Labor & Employment Law

[11/20] Scruggs v. Garst Seed Co.
In an action raising claims of retaliation and a hostile work environment, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff's former employer is affirmed where: 1) the company did not retaliate against plaintiff for filing the discrimination charge when it eliminated her position as it was eliminated by a company-wide restructuring; 2) although plaintiff claims that the company also retaliated against her when it did not hire her for one of the open positions after the restructuring, it hired the person who had previously held the position; and 3) the relatively isolated gender-based comments and remarks plaintiff's supervisor directed toward her were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the level of a hostile work environment.

[11/20] Narricot Indus., LP v. NLRB
Petitioner's request for review of a decision of the NLRB (Board), arising from allegations of various unfair labor practice charges, is denied where: 1) the Board decision was properly issued by a two-member quorum pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 153(b); and 2) the Board's decision is enforceable on the merits.

[11/20] PPG Indus., Incorp. v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers
District court's order vacating an arbitrator's award in favor of a union on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by adding a term to the underlying contract is reversed and remanded as, even if the arbitrator erred, he acted within the scope of his authority under the contract.

[11/20] Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
In an action challenging a bank's categorization of underwriters as administrative employees exempt from the Fair Labor Standard Act's overtime pay requirements, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where plaintiff's work was not related either to setting "management policies" nor to "general business operations" such as human relations or advertising, 29 C.F.R. section 541.2, but rather concerned the "production" of loans –- the fundamental service provided by the bank.

[11/19] Fleming v. Yuma Reg. Med. Ctr.
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."

[11/19] Barboza v. West Coast Digital GSM, Inc.
In a class action lawsuit brought by former employees alleging unlawful wage deductions, failure to pay overtime and other employment violations, class counsel's obligations to the class do not end with the entry of judgment and his obligations continue until all class issues are resolved, which may include enforcement of the judgment.

[11/19] Dowell v. Pacesetter, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against the defendant to enjoin it from enforcing noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in employment agreements used in California, trial court's ruling that the clauses were facially void under Business and Professions Code section 16600 and that their use violated California's Unfair Competition Law and that defendant's unclean hands defense and its cross-complaint for unfair competition failed as a matter of law is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly determined that the clauses were void as a matter of law, that no defense applied and that the cross-complaint failed to state a cause of action; and 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a permanent injunction and costs

[11/19] EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
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.

[11/18] Bandak v. Eli Lilly & Co. Retirement Plan
Judgment in favor of plaintiff in his ERISA suit against his former employer's retirement plan is affirmed as defendant's rejection of plaintiff's claim was not substantially justified in reducing his benefits under a 1997 amendment after he transferred from the United Kingdom to the US affiliate.

[11/17] Couch v. Bd. of Trustees of Mem. Hosp. of Carbon County
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendant-hospital board deprived plaintiff-physician of his First Amendment right of free speech through a campaign of retaliation against him for speaking out about substance abuse at the hospital, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where neither the hospital's investigation of plaintiff nor its warning letter to him constituted an adverse employment action for First Amendment purposes.

[11/17] Brown v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs., Inc.
In an ERISA action based on the discontinuation of plaintiff's long-term disability (LTD) benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where defendant-insurer could not be held liable for statutory penalties because 29 U.S.C. section 1132(c) only provided a cause of action against plan administrators. However, the order is reversed in part where defendant's failure to comply with its duty under section 1133(2) to provide plaintiff with "a reasonable opportunity for a full and fair review" of defendant's decision to discontinue plaintiff's LTD benefits excused plaintiff's failure to exhaust before bringing suit under section 1132(a).

[11/17] Windross v. Barton Protective Serv., Inc.
In plaintiff's employment discrimination, retaliatory harassment, and hostile work environment action against his former employer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in holding that the continuing violation doctrine is not available to plaintiff to overcome his time-barred claims; 2) it did not err in its concluding that there was no evidence of pretext in plaintiff's disciplining, suspension, or termination; and 3) district court acted within its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend and motion for reconsideration as his hostile work environment claim was time-barred.

[11/17] O'Neal v. City of Chicago
In plaintiff's second employment discrimination suit against the Chicago Police Department (CPD) claiming retaliation and sex discrimination, summary judgment in favor of CPD is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff provided insufficient evidence that she suffered an adverse employment action because she engaged in statutorily protected activity by direct method of proof that either of her two actionable transfers occurred because of her prior lawsuit or her 2006 grievance; 2) plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection under the indirect method of proof; and 3) plaintiff failed on her sex discrimination claim for the same reason as her retaliation claim, as she failed to adduce any evidence indicating that her actionable transfers were because of her sex.

[11/16] Mangano v. Verity, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employer for retaliatory termination, judgment pursuant to a jury's verdict in favor of defendant and denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of plaintiff's alleged disability as he failed to make known to the court the purpose and relevance of the evidence to any other issue; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a proposed settlement agreement fell within Evidence Code section 1152's broad scope.

[11/13] Depree v. Saunders
In a First Amendment action by a state university professor alleging that defendants deprived plaintiff of his ability to teach because he criticized the university, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) no clearly established law dictated that a university official sued in her individual capacity could not impose discipline on plaintiff; and 2) plaintiff failed to identify a cognizable property right for due process purposes. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff's claim against university administrators in their official capacities could yield prospective injunctive relief.

[11/13] Pichler v. Unite
In plaintiffs' class action suit against defendant-union for violating the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in obtaining their personal information in the union's efforts to unionize CINTAS, the largest domestic employer in the industrial laundry industry, district court's order denying a motion by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW) to modify a protective order that restricts access to certain records is affirmed as NRTW lacks standing to request modification of the protective order because the records are not judicial records.

[11/13] Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision and award finding the employer liable for discrimination against an industrially injured employee because the employer did not accept a physician's release to allow the employee to return to work is annulled as the employee did not establish a prima facie showing of employer's liability for discrimination in violation of Labor Code section 132a, and as such, the burden did not shift to the employer to establish an affirmative defense.

[11/13] Kovach v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's ERISA suit against an insurance company for denying his claim for dismemberment benefits arising from a drunk-driving motorcycle accident, summary judgment for defendant-plan administrator is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs where: 1) defendant's decision to deny benefits to the plaintiffs was contrary to the everyday meaning of the word "accidental" as it would be understood by a typical policyholder, and was based almost entirely on a body of largely distinguishable district court cases; 2) plaintiff's injuries were not "highly likely to occur" as a result of his intoxication, in contrast to the injuries that were highly likely to occur under the facts in Lennon; 3) defendant's interpretation of the Plan's provisions amounts to an additional, unwritten exclusion for all drunk-driving injuries, which is not permitted under even the most deferential standard of review; and 4) defendant's denial of coverage based on plaintiff's injuries being non-accidental was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.

[11/12] City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
City's petition for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarding the full $125,000 death benefit to the California Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit (DWD Unit), notwithstanding the City's payment of $104,208 in death benefits to the deceased worker's estate pursuant to Labor Code section 4702(a)(6)(B) is annulled because the escheat of a death benefit to the state after partial payment to the estate, in effect the award of two death benefits for a single death, is inconsistent with the governing statutes and the legislative policy they implement.

[11/12] South Bay Boston Mgmt., Inc. v. Unite Here, Local 26
District court's grant of defendant-union's motion to compel arbitration and denial of plaintiff's petition for declaratory judgment is affirmed where: 1) the Union neutrality agreement at issue was not void ab initio; and 2) the arbitration clause of the agreement remained in effect.

Back to Main Menu