Case Summaries
Labor & Employment Law
[09/08]
McKissick v. Yuen
In an action against plaintiff's former company and two of its former officers, accusing them of perpetrating a fraud that rendered her stock options in the company worthless, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the parties' separation agreement unambiguously barred plaintiff's claims; and 2) although the separation agreement entitled defendant to recoup the attorney's fees it incurred in defending the suit, the agreement did not permit the company to recover the fees it incurred in prosecuting a counterclaim against plaintiff.
[09/08]
Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan
In an action concerning defendant's denial of disability benefits under an ERISA plan, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where: 1) the court's case law
prohibited courts from considering materials outside the administrative record where the extra-record materials sought to be introduced related to a claimant's eligibility for benefits; and 2) neither a claimant nor an administrator should be allowed to use discovery to engage in unnecessarily broad discovery that slows the efficient resolution of an ERISA claim.
[09/08]
Alvarado-Santos v. Dep't of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer, claiming national origin and gender discrimination under Title VII, jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff is reversed as defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because, based on the evidence presented at trial, no reasonable jury could find that the nonrenewal of plaintiff's contract was based on her gender and/or national origin.
[09/08]
Brown v. Auto. Components Holdings, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for interference with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as defendant's termination of plaintiff's employment based on her noncompliance with its internal leave procedures did not violate the FMLA because the undisputed facts establish that plaintiff was absent without leave after failing to give proper FMLA notice for an extension of a previously requested leave period.
[09/07]
Payne v. Salazar
In an action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, dismissal of the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is affirmed in part where the district court properly held that plaintiff failed to exhaust one of her claims. However, the order is reversed in part where an employee's right to trial de novo -- whether her employer is the federal government or a private company -- means that she is entitled to a plenary trial of whatever claims she brings to court, and it does not mean that she must sue on claims she has no interest in pursuing.
[09/07]
Kahn v. Dep't of Justice
In a DEA agent's suit under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), the Merit Systems Protection Board's final decision that plaintiff did not make protected disclosures under the WPA is affirmed where: 1) the administrative judge did not err in finding that plaintiff's communications with an agent were not protected disclosures because they were made as part of normal duties through normal channels; 2) plaintiff's report was not a disclosure because he did not reveal something that was hidden and not known to the DEA; and 3) because plaintiff's communications were not protected under the WPA, the question of whether the government could have shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have transferred plaintiff on the absence of his communications need not be addressed.
[09/07]
Parker v. NutriSystem, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his employer for past overtime payments in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer is affirmed where: 1) the Department of Labor's factually distinguishable opinion letters and broad general guidance are not sufficiently thorough or consistent to warrant deference in this case; 2) the fact that defendant's plan is not calculated strictly as a percentage of sale price does not disqualify it from being a commission under section 7(i); and 3) when the flat-rate payments made to an employee based on that employee's sales are proportionally related to the charges passed on to the consumer, the payments can be considered a bona fide commission rate for the purposes of section 7(i).
[09/07]
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Kronos Inc.
In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) suit seeking enforcement of a third-party administrative subpoena it issued against defendant pertaining to the EEOC's investigation into a charge of discrimination against a grocery store, district court's order narrowing the scope of the subpoena and directing the parties to negotiate a confidentiality order is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment is reversed insofar as it limited the scope of the EEOC's subpoena in terms of geography, time and job description; 2) to the extent that the district court's order limits the EEOC's access to validation efforts conducted solely on behalf of the store, documents relating to potential adverse impact on disabled individuals to those relating specifically and only to the store, and user's manuals and instructions for the assessment were actually provided to the store, the order is reversed; 3) district court's judgment is affirmed to the extent that it declines to enforce the portion of the EEOC's subpoena requesting information related to potential discrimination based on race; and 4) district court's confidentiality order is vacated and remanded to permit the district court to conduct a good cause balancing test.
[09/07]
Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employer for disability and age discrimination, a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of disability and age discrimination; and 2) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the motivation for his termination was discriminatory in response to defendant's proffer of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating his employment.
[09/07]
Alday v. Raytheon Co.
In an action alleging that defendant breached collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with plaintiffs and violated the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the language of the CBAs made clear that defendant's agreement to pay retiree medical insurance premiums continued beyond the term of the CBAs, even where its agreement to pay non-retired employee premiums did not; 2) defendant's leeway to amend its benefit plans did not allow it to alter the terms of the CBAs under which it agreed to provide company-paid health insurance to retirees; and 3) plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts supporting their claim for punitive and extra-contractual damages.
[09/03]
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc.
In a sexual harassment case in which a male employee was the victim of a female co-worker, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether: 1) plaintiff was subjected to "verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature"; 2) such conduct was unwelcome; 3) the pervasiveness and the inadequate response by the employer established a jury question of whether a co-worker's overtures led to an abusive environment; 4) defendant's actions were not enough to establish an affirmative defense.
[09/03]
Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employer claiming discrimination because of his race and retaliation under Title VII, jury's verdict for plaintiff on a retaliation claim is reversed and remanded as the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to find an actual or constructive discharge.
[09/03]
Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has offered insufficient evidence to establish the key elements of her retaliation and discrimination claims; and 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
[09/03]
Songer v. Dillon Resources, Inc.
In an action brought by truck drivers who operate commercial trucks against defendants for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice is affirmed where the Motor Carrier Act exemption applies to bar plaintiffs' claims as: 1) the MCA applies to defendant-staff leasing agency because is a joint employer with the two companies, both of whom are subject to the exemption, and 2) plaintiffs engaged in activities that directly affect operational safety of motor vehicles in transport of property in interstate commerce.
[09/03]
Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), to recover damages for back injuries that he allegedly suffered while working as a machinist at defendant's locomotive repair shop, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to establish causation, negligence or foreseeability; and 2) the district court properly excluded plaintiff's medical expert's causation opinion for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2).
