Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Jon Woods, a workers' compensation attorney, was convicted of 37 felony counts of workers' compensation fraud. Woods had engaged in unlawful kickback and referral fee arrangements, referring copy and subpoena work to companies that provided financial benefits to him and his firm. This corruption affected the workers' compensation system, as the employer's insurance company had to cover the costs.The Superior Court of Orange County reviewed the case, where Woods was found guilty on all counts and received a four-year prison sentence. He was also ordered to pay $701,452 in restitution. Woods appealed, arguing that the Williamson rule precluded convictions on counts 5 through 37, and that the court erred in limiting his cross-examination of certain prosecution witnesses.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Woods that the Williamson rule applied, as his conduct fell under a more specific statute, Labor Code section 139.32, which criminalizes kickback schemes and is a misdemeanor. Therefore, the court reversed Woods's convictions on counts 5 through 37, the white-collar sentencing enhancement, and the restitution award based on these charges. However, the court found no error in the trial court's limitation of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and affirmed the remainder of the judgment. View "People v. Woods" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Nike, Inc., alleging gender discrimination and hostile workplace claims. During discovery, a collection of internal workplace complaints, known as the Starfish complaints, was produced under a protective order. Three media organizations, including The Oregonian, intervened in the case to gain access to these documents. Plaintiffs' attorney inadvertently sent confidential documents to a reporter from The Oregonian, who refused to return or destroy them upon request.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon initially granted a motion to intervene by the media organizations. However, when the inadvertent disclosure occurred, the magistrate judge ordered The Oregonian to return or destroy the documents. The district court vacated this order, reasoning that it lacked authority to compel a non-party to return the documents. The magistrate judge then denied the motion, and the district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court had the inherent authority to order The Oregonian, as an intervenor and thus a party to the case, to return or destroy the confidential documents. The court determined that The Oregonian did not have a First Amendment right to withhold the documents because pretrial discovery proceedings are not public components of the judicial process. The court applied relaxed First Amendment scrutiny and concluded that the district court's exercise of its inherent authority over discovery furthered a substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "CAHILL V. NIKE, INC." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Christian L. Johnson sued his employer, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. During the litigation, Caltrans attorney Paul Brown sent an email to Johnson’s supervisor, Nicolas Duncan, which Duncan then shared with Johnson. Johnson forwarded the email to his attorney, John Shepardson, who further disseminated it to several experts and individuals. Caltrans sought a protective order, claiming the email was covered by attorney-client privilege. The trial court granted the order and later disqualified Shepardson and three experts for non-compliance with the order.The Superior Court of San Joaquin County issued the protective order, finding the email privileged. Johnson and Shepardson were ordered to destroy all copies and cease further dissemination. Caltrans later filed a motion to enforce the order and subsequently a motion to disqualify Shepardson and the experts, arguing continued non-compliance and misuse of the privileged email. The trial court granted the disqualification, citing Shepardson’s breach of ethical duties and the potential prejudice to Caltrans.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the Brown email was protected by attorney-client privilege. The court found no merit in Johnson’s arguments that the privilege was waived or that the crime-fraud exception applied. The court also upheld the disqualification of Shepardson and the experts, concluding that Shepardson’s actions violated ethical obligations and posed a risk of unfair advantage and harm to the integrity of the judicial process. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust in the administration of justice. View "Johnson v. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Rosalyn Musker worked in sales for Suuchi, Inc., which sells software subscriptions to apparel manufacturers. In addition to her base salary, Musker was eligible for commissions under Suuchi’s Sales Commission Plan (SCP). In March 2020, Suuchi decided to sell Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) on a commission basis due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Musker generated approximately $34,448,900 in gross revenue by selling PPE. The parties disputed whether her 4% commission was based on gross or net revenue and whether these commissions were considered "wages" under the Wage Payment Law (WPL) or excluded as "supplementary incentives."The trial judge dismissed Musker’s WPL claims, holding that her PPE commissions were not "wages" under the WPL. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, agreeing that the commissions were "supplementary incentives" and not "wages" under the WPL. Musker appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case. The Court held that under the WPL, "wages" are defined as "direct monetary compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, where the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, or commission basis." The Court concluded that compensating an employee by paying a "commission" for "labor or services" always constitutes a wage under the WPL. Therefore, a "commission" cannot be excluded from the definition of "wages" as a "supplementary incentive."The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment, vacated the trial judge’s order dismissing Musker’s WPL claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court clarified that Musker’s PPE commissions are "wages" under the WPL, regardless of whether they are based on gross or net revenue, and that receiving a base salary does not turn "commissions" into "supplementary incentives." View "Musker v. Suuchi, Inc." on Justia Law

Three former employees of Amazon filed a class action complaint seeking payment for straight-time and overtime wages under Connecticut’s wage laws for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings after clocking out. The employees argued that this time should be compensable under state law. Amazon required employees to pass through security screenings when exiting the secured area of their fulfillment centers, but not upon entry. The screenings involved metal detectors and varied based on the personal belongings employees carried. Employees were not compensated for the time spent in these screenings.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment in favor of Amazon, dismissing the employees' complaint. The court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, which held that time spent in mandatory security screenings is not compensable under federal law. The employees appealed the decision and moved to certify a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding the applicability of Connecticut’s wage laws to their case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the question of whether Connecticut’s wage laws require compensation for time spent in mandatory security screenings is unresolved. The court decided to certify this question to the Connecticut Supreme Court for a definitive resolution. Additionally, the court asked the Connecticut Supreme Court to address whether a de minimis exception applies to such compensable time and, if so, what amount of time is considered de minimis. The Second Circuit reserved its decision and dismissed the employees' motion to certify as moot, pending the Connecticut Supreme Court's response. View "Del Rio v. Amazon.com.DECE, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Matthew Theisz, was assaulted by an MBTA bus driver with a known history of anger management issues and prior violent incidents. The MBTA had hired, promoted, and retained the driver despite his problematic behavior, including a previous assault on a passenger and an arrest following a confrontation with a police officer. On the day of the incident, Theisz, lost and frustrated, attempted to get the driver's attention, leading to a violent altercation where the driver severely beat him, resulting in a traumatic brain injury.The Superior Court denied the MBTA's motion for summary judgment, which argued that it was immune from liability under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (MTCA), specifically G. L. c. 258, § 10 (j). The MBTA contended that the claim was based on a failure to prevent harm by a third person. The Appeals Court affirmed the denial, and the MBTA sought further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and concluded that § 10 (j) does not provide immunity to the MBTA for its own negligence in hiring, promoting, retaining, and supervising the bus driver. The court held that the MBTA's affirmative act of placing the driver in a public-facing position, despite his known violent tendencies, materially contributed to the harm suffered by Theisz. The court also reaffirmed that § 10 (c) of the MTCA, which provides immunity for intentional torts, does not shield the MBTA from liability for its own negligent supervision and retention of the driver. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Theisz v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority" on Justia Law

A school principal used the school's printer after hours to create a coaster as a retirement gift for a friend. The coaster design contained the School District's official logo but altered the District's motto in a disrespectful manner. A custodian took pictures of the coaster, which were shared on social media, leading to public outrage. The principal left the community the next day. The District proposed to terminate him for incompetence and violating anti-harassment policies. After a brief pretermination hearing, the District terminated the principal. The principal appealed, and the Board upheld the termination following an additional hearing.The principal then appealed to the superior court, which also affirmed his termination. The court found that the District had grounds to terminate the principal due to substantial noncompliance with District rules and regulations and that the community's reaction to the coaster was reasonable. The court also rejected the principal's free speech arguments, stating that his speech was not protected under the First Amendment. The court acknowledged that the pretermination hearing process was flawed but deemed the error harmless due to the subsequent post-termination hearing.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court held that the Board had a reasonable basis to terminate the principal for incompetency under AS 14.20.170(a)(1) due to his inability to perform his duties effectively after the incident. The court also concluded that the principal's termination did not violate his free speech rights under AS 14.20.095 or the First Amendment. However, the court found that the pretermination hearing process did not provide sufficient due process, as the principal was not informed of his right to call witnesses. The court affirmed the termination but reversed the superior court's decision denying back pay, awarding back pay through the date of the Board's post-termination hearing decision. View "Stirling v. North Slope Borough School District" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Perez, a former employee of Rose Hills Company, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees, alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws. The complaint did not specify the amount in controversy or the frequency of the alleged violations. Rose Hills removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which allows removal if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.The United States District Court for the Central District of California remanded the case to state court, stating that Rose Hills did not meet CAFA’s $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement. The district court found that Rose Hills failed to provide evidence justifying its assumed violation rate, which was used to calculate the amount in controversy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a removing defendant under CAFA is permitted to rely on reasonable assumptions based on the plaintiff’s complaint to calculate the amount in controversy. The court found that Rose Hills’ approach, which included assumptions about the violation rate tethered to the language of the complaint, was reasonable. The district court erred by requiring Rose Hills to provide evidence supporting its assumed violation rate.The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to evaluate whether Rose Hills’ violation-rate assumption was a reasonable interpretation of the complaint. The court emphasized that assumptions need not be proven with evidence if they are reasonable interpretations of the complaint’s allegations. View "Perez v. Rose Hills Company" on Justia Law

A collective bargaining agreement between the Teamsters Union and Quality Custom Distribution guaranteed that the top 80% of senior employees would receive at least 40 paid hours per week. During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, many Starbucks stores in or near Chicago closed or reduced their hours, resulting in senior employees averaging only 30 hours a week. The Union demanded that the employer make up the difference, but the employer refused, citing an exception for Acts of God.The dispute was taken to an arbitrator, who ruled in favor of the Union. The arbitrator determined that while epidemics might be considered Acts of God, the reduction in work was primarily due to the Governor of Illinois' orders, which were not Acts of God. The employer then filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to nullify the arbitrator's decision. The district court judge declined to nullify the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that as long as the arbitrator interprets the contract, the award must stand. The arbitrator had interpreted the contract's "Act of God" clause, concluding it did not cover the Governor's orders. The court emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to ensuring the arbitrator interpreted the contract, not whether the interpretation was correct. The court also noted that the employer's conduct in the litigation process imposed unnecessary costs and ordered the employer to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. View "Quality Custom Distribution Services LLC v International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 710" on Justia Law

ExxonMobil Technology and Engineering Company (Exxon) operates a research facility in New Jersey where approximately 165 employees are represented by the Independent Laboratory Employees Union (the Union). The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Exxon and the Union expired in May 2018. During negotiations for a new CBA, disputes arose over Exxon’s personal time off (PTO) policies and paid parental leave (PPTO). The Union wanted to restore a policy allowing supervisors to review PTO requests and sought eight weeks of PPTO for its members. Exxon refused to negotiate on these issues, citing concerns over inconsistencies and potential grievances.An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Exxon violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain in good faith on the supervisor PTO review issue, retaliating against the Union for past grievances, and suggesting that employees would receive PPTO if they decertified the Union. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) initially reversed the ALJ’s findings in a 2020 decision. However, it was later discovered that a Board member involved in the decision had a conflict of interest, leading the NLRB to vacate the 2020 decision and reconsider the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 2020 decision due to the conflict of interest. The court also upheld the NLRB’s findings that Exxon refused to bargain in good faith on the supervisor PTO review issue and retaliated against the Union for past grievances. Additionally, the court supported the NLRB’s conclusion that Exxon unlawfully suggested employees would receive PPTO if they left the Union. The court denied Exxon’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order. View "ExxonMobil v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law