Administrative, Employment
Where statute restores a class of appeals according to the law before the class of appeals was revoked, in determining eligibility for the appeal, courts should use the present scheme of employment, as modified by regulations, in combination with the law of the earlier period. A position that had the right of appeal before the change does not therefore have the right of appeal after the change, as it might have been modified by regulations.
DE SANTIS v. MSPB
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Employment Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Employment Law. Show all posts
Fourth Circuit: Gerard Morrison v. County of Fairfax, VA
Employment, Administrative
The "blue collar" provision of the exceptions to the exceptions to the FLSA overtime statute does not imply a "blue collar" requirement to subsequent categories, such as emergency responders.
Auer deference to agency determination that the test for the "emergency responder" is one of the employee's primary duty.
Fire captains primarily fight fires. Exempt from exemption, and therefore covered.
Gerard Morrison v. County of Fairfax, VA
The "blue collar" provision of the exceptions to the exceptions to the FLSA overtime statute does not imply a "blue collar" requirement to subsequent categories, such as emergency responders.
Auer deference to agency determination that the test for the "emergency responder" is one of the employee's primary duty.
Fire captains primarily fight fires. Exempt from exemption, and therefore covered.
Gerard Morrison v. County of Fairfax, VA
Eighth Circuit: Jerry Von Rohr v. Reliance Bank
Administrative
Deference to agency finding that a contract claim for one year of post-employment salary was barred by FDIC "golden parachute" law, as contrary precedent involved staturory, not contract, claims.
Auer deference to agency on scope not relevant, as agency cites Blacks Law Dictionary for disputed term. Plain meaning.
Deference to agency finding that a contract claim for one year of post-employment salary was barred by FDIC "golden parachute" law, as contrary precedent involved staturory, not contract, claims.
Auer deference to agency on scope not relevant, as agency cites Blacks Law Dictionary for disputed term. Plain meaning.
Jerry Von Rohr v. Reliance Bank
Eleventh Circuit: Crew One Productions, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Labor, Employment, Agency
Given hiring agency's lack of control over stage hands on the job and several other factors, NRLB certification of an exclusive representative was not supported by substantial evidence.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201510429.pdf
Given hiring agency's lack of control over stage hands on the job and several other factors, NRLB certification of an exclusive representative was not supported by substantial evidence.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201510429.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Terry Deets v. Massman Construction Company
Employment, Discrimination
Statement by employer that percentage of minority employees was to low creates genuine issue of material fact as to whether the subsequent layoff of a worker who had recently lost seniority was discriminatory.
Mitigation as an affirmative defense for Title VII operates as a damages offset.
S1981 allows suits against corporate entities in joint venture, as it contemplates interference with contracts.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-03/C:15-1411:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1697105:S:0
Statement by employer that percentage of minority employees was to low creates genuine issue of material fact as to whether the subsequent layoff of a worker who had recently lost seniority was discriminatory.
Mitigation as an affirmative defense for Title VII operates as a damages offset.
S1981 allows suits against corporate entities in joint venture, as it contemplates interference with contracts.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-03/C:15-1411:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1697105:S:0
Third Circuit: Jeffrey Wiest v. Tyco Electronics Corp
FRCP, Torts, Employment
12(b)6 ruling for plaintiff does not compel a finding at summary judgment under law of the case that there was sufficient nexus between the protected activity and the adverse action.
Insufficient nexus, nondiscriminatory motive.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/152034p.pdf
12(b)6 ruling for plaintiff does not compel a finding at summary judgment under law of the case that there was sufficient nexus between the protected activity and the adverse action.
Insufficient nexus, nondiscriminatory motive.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/152034p.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Ratna Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Management Service
Employment, discrimination
Where rebuttal of nondiscriminatory motive includes both direct and indirect methods of proof, appellate review analyses both separately.
No direct evidence, insufficient comparators.
Small pay decision is timely, can be considered separately.
Employer response on compensation that only discussed raises suffices to challenge broad compensation argument.
Insufficient proof of retaliation.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:14-3201:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:1692303:S:0
Where rebuttal of nondiscriminatory motive includes both direct and indirect methods of proof, appellate review analyses both separately.
No direct evidence, insufficient comparators.
Small pay decision is timely, can be considered separately.
Employer response on compensation that only discussed raises suffices to challenge broad compensation argument.
Insufficient proof of retaliation.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:14-3201:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:1692303:S:0
Fifth Circuit: Ambrea Fairchild v. All Amer Check Cashing, Inc.
Employment, FRE
FLSA requires actual knowledge by the employer that the emplyee is working overtime - possible discovery in computer usage records is insufficient to impute.
No abuse of discretion in barring party-opponent hearsay exception for non-workplace statement by supervisor not directly involved in the case's statement of improper reason for dismissal.
Sufficient showing of non-pretextual nondiscriminatory reason for action.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60190-CV0.pdf
FLSA requires actual knowledge by the employer that the emplyee is working overtime - possible discovery in computer usage records is insufficient to impute.
No abuse of discretion in barring party-opponent hearsay exception for non-workplace statement by supervisor not directly involved in the case's statement of improper reason for dismissal.
Sufficient showing of non-pretextual nondiscriminatory reason for action.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60190-CV0.pdf
First Circuit: Reyes-Orta v. Highway and Transportation
Free Speech, employment
Letter by co-worker sufficient proof that employer was aware of political affiliation.
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether adverse employment actions created a cause of action.
Bona fide reason for ending of employment does not mean that there is no issue of material fact as to whether the ending of employment would have happened but for the political speech.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2172P-01A.pdf
Letter by co-worker sufficient proof that employer was aware of political affiliation.
Genuine issue of material fact as to whether adverse employment actions created a cause of action.
Bona fide reason for ending of employment does not mean that there is no issue of material fact as to whether the ending of employment would have happened but for the political speech.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2172P-01A.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Murray Energy Corporation, et al. v. Secretary of Labor, et al.
Employment, safety
Agency rulemaking on mine dust upheld.
Earlier action in concert with another agency did not mandate a joint revision of the standard, as the joint action was an interim step based on another statutory provision. Stare decisis based on prior Article III review as well.
Substantively, the regulation is not an abuse of discretion.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201411942.pdf
Agency rulemaking on mine dust upheld.
Earlier action in concert with another agency did not mandate a joint revision of the standard, as the joint action was an interim step based on another statutory provision. Stare decisis based on prior Article III review as well.
Substantively, the regulation is not an abuse of discretion.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201411942.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Sanderson Farms, Incorporated v. OSHC
Administrative / OSHA
Presumption of hazard properly attaches in initial safety proceedings, as de minimis risk is an affirmative defense later on.
Substantial evidence for agency's abattoir citations.
Agency considered violation of a key projecting at the end of a shaft as being that of a projected shaft. The correct regulation is that regulating keys.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60215-CV0.pdf
Presumption of hazard properly attaches in initial safety proceedings, as de minimis risk is an affirmative defense later on.
Substantial evidence for agency's abattoir citations.
Agency considered violation of a key projecting at the end of a shaft as being that of a projected shaft. The correct regulation is that regulating keys.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60215-CV0.pdf
Second Circuit: Glatt et al. v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. et al.
Employment / Unpaid interns
No Skidmore deference to DOL definition of an employee.
Internships distinguished from employment by identifying the primary beneficiary of the relationship.
This standard bars the formation of the class due to predominance concerns.
Bonus: cameo by prominent Hollywood pillow.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b78c6ab-9a30-46d4-b200-629fd5966190/1/doc/13-4478a_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b78c6ab-9a30-46d4-b200-629fd5966190/1/hilite/
No Skidmore deference to DOL definition of an employee.
Internships distinguished from employment by identifying the primary beneficiary of the relationship.
This standard bars the formation of the class due to predominance concerns.
Bonus: cameo by prominent Hollywood pillow.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b78c6ab-9a30-46d4-b200-629fd5966190/1/doc/13-4478a_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b78c6ab-9a30-46d4-b200-629fd5966190/1/hilite/
First Circuit: Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc.
Employment
Question certified to Puerto Rico Supreme Court as to whether the frequent transfer of employees within a single corporate entity counts for severance classification as transfers within P.R. or as international transfers.
(Translated version of relevant PR Court decision attached.)
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1424P-01A.pdf
Question certified to Puerto Rico Supreme Court as to whether the frequent transfer of employees within a single corporate entity counts for severance classification as transfers within P.R. or as international transfers.
(Translated version of relevant PR Court decision attached.)
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1424P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: Harrison v. Granite Bay Care, Inc.
FRCP, Principal Place of Business
Despite the fact that the out-of-state corporate headquarters adopts a hands-off approach to the day to day running of the company, the nerve center test designates it as the principal place of business when the overall goals of the corporation are set there and the upper management personnel decisions are made from there.
The relevant exception in the state whistleblower statute derives from the motivations of the employee, and not from his or her duties. An employee whose duties include raising concerns is not precluded from seeking relief under the statute so long as his or her intent was to raise the concern, and not just to follow a direct instruction by a superior in the corporation.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1988P-01A.pdf
Despite the fact that the out-of-state corporate headquarters adopts a hands-off approach to the day to day running of the company, the nerve center test designates it as the principal place of business when the overall goals of the corporation are set there and the upper management personnel decisions are made from there.
The relevant exception in the state whistleblower statute derives from the motivations of the employee, and not from his or her duties. An employee whose duties include raising concerns is not precluded from seeking relief under the statute so long as his or her intent was to raise the concern, and not just to follow a direct instruction by a superior in the corporation.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1988P-01A.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Peter Enger v. Chicago Carriage Cab Corp.
Statutory construction/ Employment
Fares paid by taxicab riders are indirect compensation, which does not trigger state wage laws.
Unjust enrichment claim denied, as the relationship is covered by an implied contract, and state law bars unjust enrichment claims where a contract exists.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-11/C:15-1057:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:1685039:S:0
Fares paid by taxicab riders are indirect compensation, which does not trigger state wage laws.
Unjust enrichment claim denied, as the relationship is covered by an implied contract, and state law bars unjust enrichment claims where a contract exists.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-11/C:15-1057:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:1685039:S:0
Federal Circuit: Reddick v. FDIC
Employment/ Administrative
An accepted offer to extend a term of employment became valid only upon the end of the previous employment, and subsequent questionable behavior by the employee therefore permitted the employer to decline to extend employment.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-3188.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
An accepted offer to extend a term of employment became valid only upon the end of the previous employment, and subsequent questionable behavior by the employee therefore permitted the employer to decline to extend employment.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-3188.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
Eleventh Circuit: John H. Quinlan v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor
OSHA
Substantial evidence for agency finding that workers were not commandeered by another contractor at the time of accident.
Where a supervisor is engaged in a violation of the act with the employee, knowledge of the violation can still be imputed to the supervisor's employer.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201412347.pdf
Substantial evidence for agency finding that workers were not commandeered by another contractor at the time of accident.
Where a supervisor is engaged in a violation of the act with the employee, knowledge of the violation can still be imputed to the supervisor's employer.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201412347.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Thomas Tubesing v. USA
FTCA
Although the specific harms are not outlined in the latter statute, plaintiff's standing under FTCA is displaed by the CSRA, given that the harms are specifically employment-related.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30347-CV0.pdf
Although the specific harms are not outlined in the latter statute, plaintiff's standing under FTCA is displaed by the CSRA, given that the harms are specifically employment-related.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30347-CV0.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Tracy Morton v. Vanderbilt University
Employment
As some workers were paid for 60 days after they were told to leave, the layoffs did not trigger the Federal WARN act, as a subset of the workers laid off were technically still employed.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0002p-06.pdf
As some workers were paid for 60 days after they were told to leave, the layoffs did not trigger the Federal WARN act, as a subset of the workers laid off were technically still employed.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0002p-06.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Frederic Fezard v. United Cerebral Palsy etc.
Employment law - home health
When the employee cares for the patient in the home of the employee, the "private home" exception to the labor statute applies.
Retaliation claim properly dismissed, as nonretaliatory basis not proven pretextual.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143601P.pdf
When the employee cares for the patient in the home of the employee, the "private home" exception to the labor statute applies.
Retaliation claim properly dismissed, as nonretaliatory basis not proven pretextual.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143601P.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)