Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Mary Ann Arnold worked for United Airlines from 1994 to 2020. She alleged age discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge after experiencing changes in her job responsibilities and being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Arnold claimed these actions were due to her age and previous complaints about discrimination and harassment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of United Airlines on Arnold's claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The court dismissed her constructive discharge claim without prejudice, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Arnold did not provide sufficient evidence to show that she suffered adverse employment actions due to age discrimination. The court also found that her retaliation claim failed because the actions taken by United were not materially adverse and were not shown to be causally connected to her complaints. Additionally, the court held that Arnold did not demonstrate a hostile work environment based on age, as the incidents she described were not severe or pervasive enough to meet the legal standard. The court also upheld the dismissal of her constructive discharge claim due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. View "Arnold v. United Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

James Jurgensen sustained a work injury on July 29, 2021, while employed by Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. He hired attorney Joshua E. Borken, who agreed to a contingent fee of 20% of the first $130,000 of compensation and 20% of any excess amount, subject to approval. Minnesota Statutes § 176.081, subd. 1(a) (2022), caps attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases at $26,000. The parties settled for $150,000, and Borken sought $30,000 in fees, including $4,000 in excess fees. The compensation judge approved $26,000 but denied the excess fees after applying the Irwin factors.The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed the compensation judge’s decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the excess fees. The WCCA also concluded that automatic approval of unobjected-to excess fees is inconsistent with section 176.081, which provides a presumptive cap on attorney fees. The WCCA did not address the constitutional issue due to a lack of jurisdiction.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the 2024 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 176.081, which increases the cap on attorney fees, does not apply retroactively. The court also held that the WCCA did not err by declining to automatically approve the requested excess fee. Additionally, the court found that Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1(a) (2022), does not violate the Contracts Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. Finally, the court concluded that the WCCA did not err by affirming the compensation judge’s denial of excess attorney fees under the Irwin factors.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the WCCA, upholding the denial of the $4,000 in excess attorney fees. View "Jurgensen vs. Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc." on Justia Law

Darren Markley sued his employer, US Bank, in federal court, alleging age discrimination under federal law and wrongful termination under Colorado state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of US Bank on the federal claim and dismissed the state law claim without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Markley did not appeal the dismissal of the state law claim or request the district court to reconsider it under diversity jurisdiction, despite knowing that diversity jurisdiction existed.Markley then filed his state law claim in the Denver District Court. US Bank removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss the claim, arguing claim preclusion. The district court granted the motion, holding that Markley could have pursued his state law claim in the original federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that his failure to do so precluded him from bringing the claim in a new case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that claim preclusion applied because Markley could have litigated his state law claim in the prior federal lawsuit by asserting diversity jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a final judgment on the merits in the earlier action, which included the resolution of the federal claim, precluded Markley from bringing the state law claim in a new lawsuit. The court also found that the district court did not violate the party presentation principle by addressing the issue of diversity jurisdiction, as it was within the court's power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law. View "Markley v. U.S. Bank National Association" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a nurse, the plaintiff, and her former employer, the defendant hospital. The plaintiff alleged that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints about safety issues. She brought five claims for relief, but only three statutory claims went to the jury: whistle-blower retaliation, unlawful retaliation, and unlawful employment practice. The jury found in favor of the defendant on the first two claims and in favor of the plaintiff on the third claim. The trial court entered a general judgment reflecting these verdicts.The defendant appealed the general judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in giving a "cat's paw" jury instruction, which allowed the jury to impute the bias of the plaintiff's coworkers to the defendant. The Court of Appeals agreed that the instruction was improper and reversed and remanded for a new trial. The trial court then vacated the general judgment and ordered a retrial of all three claims, including those on which the defendant had prevailed. The defendant appealed this order, but the Appellate Commissioner dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals denied reconsideration.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case to determine whether the trial court's order was appealable under ORS 19.205(3). The court concluded that, after the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the general judgment, there was no longer a general judgment in place. Therefore, the trial court's order determining the scope of the retrial was not an order made "after a general judgment" and was not immediately appealable under ORS 19.205(3). The orders of the Court of Appeals were affirmed. View "Crosbie v. Asante" on Justia Law

Junius Joyner, III, an African-American male, was hired by a legal staffing agency, Mestel & Company (Hire Counsel), and assigned to work at Morrison & Foerster LLP in Washington, D.C. He worked on the merger of Sprint Corporation with T-Mobile U.S., Inc. from July to December 2019. Joyner alleged several incidents of racial discrimination and a hostile work environment, including delayed work assignments, derogatory comments, and harassment by coworkers. He also claimed wrongful discharge under D.C. law, asserting he was terminated after reporting potential antitrust violations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Joyner’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that Joyner did not provide sufficient facts to support his claims of racial discrimination and a hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. The court also dismissed his wrongful discharge claim under D.C. law, concluding that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Joyner’s federal claims, agreeing that Joyner failed to plausibly allege that his treatment was racially motivated or that the work environment was sufficiently hostile. The court found that Joyner’s allegations did not meet the necessary standard to infer racial discrimination or a hostile work environment. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment on the wrongful discharge claim, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over this claim and remanded it with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Joyner v. Morrison and Foerster LLP" on Justia Law

In 2012, Bill Simmon, an employee of Vermont Community Access Media, Inc. (VCAM), invited Ciara Kilburn and her minor sister Brona to VCAM’s premises to record a commercial. Simmon secretly recorded the sisters changing clothes using VCAM’s equipment and shared the videos online, where they were viewed millions of times. In 2020, the Kilburns filed a lawsuit against Simmon for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligence per se, and against VCAM for vicarious liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, dismissed claims against Vermont State Colleges and did not instruct the jury on vicarious liability or NIED. The jury found Simmon liable for invasion of privacy and IIED, and VCAM liable for negligent supervision. Each plaintiff was awarded $1.75 million in compensatory damages against both Simmon and VCAM, and $2 million in punitive damages against Simmon. The court denied VCAM’s motions to exclude evidence, for a new trial, and for remittitur, and also denied plaintiffs’ request to hold VCAM jointly and severally liable for Simmon’s damages.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that emotional-distress damages were available to plaintiffs for VCAM’s negligent supervision because the claim was based on intentional torts (invasion of privacy and IIED) for which such damages are recoverable. The court found no error in the jury’s award of damages, concluding that the evidence supported the verdict and that the damages were not excessive. The court also ruled that plaintiffs waived their claim for joint and several liability by not objecting to the jury instructions or verdict form before deliberations. View "Kilburn v. Simmon" on Justia Law

The case involves a representative action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) filed by Mamadou Bah against Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Boston, LLC, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. Bah alleged that the defendants failed to pay overtime wages to assistant branch managers before November 27, 2016. Bah sought conditional certification of a class of similarly situated employees and requested the issuance of notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The defendants moved to stay the issuance of notice pending a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The district court later dismissed Bah's claims against Enterprise Holdings, Inc. for failure to state a claim, leading to further amendments to the complaint.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially dismissed Bah's claims against Enterprise Holdings, Inc. without prejudice, leading to the filing of an amended complaint. The district court eventually denied a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, but by then, the statute of limitations had expired for potential opt-in plaintiffs. The district court conditionally certified a class and authorized notice, but the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed as untimely. Bah requested equitable tolling of the statute of limitations due to the delay in issuing notice, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling. The court found that the delay in issuing notice was attributable to Bah's own pleading errors and that the opt-in plaintiffs did not demonstrate the requisite diligence. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny equitable tolling and dismiss the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs as untimely. View "Kwoka v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Boston, LLC" on Justia Law

Brian J. Murphy, a former employee of Caterpillar Inc., alleged that he was constructively discharged due to age discrimination and retaliation for previous legal actions against the company. Murphy, who began working for Caterpillar in 1979, had a long history of positive performance reviews and promotions. In 2000, he was placed on a performance action plan and subsequently fired after complaining about age discrimination. He sued Caterpillar, won a retaliation claim, and was reinstated in 2005. In 2018, after successfully leading a significant project, Murphy was placed on another performance action plan that he argued was designed for him to fail.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Caterpillar on all claims. The court found that Murphy did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of age discrimination and retaliation. Murphy appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Murphy presented enough evidence to support a reasonable inference of pretext and unlawful intent regarding his age discrimination claim. The court noted that the performance action plan was flawed, as it included a deadline that had already passed and was signed off as failed before Murphy had a chance to comply. This, along with Murphy's consistent positive performance reviews, suggested that the plan was a pretext for discrimination. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on Murphy's retaliation claim, citing the long gap between his previous lawsuit and the adverse action, and the lack of evidence of retaliatory animus.The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision on the age discrimination claim, allowing it to proceed to trial, but affirmed the decision on the retaliation claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Murphy v Caterpillar Inc." on Justia Law

A fifty-nine-year-old General Manager (GM) at a Chili’s restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee, was terminated and replaced by a thirty-three-year-old with no managerial experience. The employer, Brinker International, Inc., claimed the termination was due to the GM creating a toxic "culture" and not "living the Chili’s way," despite the restaurant being one of the top performers in the market. The GM alleged that the termination was due to age discrimination, as he was the oldest manager in the region and believed Brinker was systematically replacing older employees with younger ones.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment in favor of Brinker, accepting the company's explanation of "culture" as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination. The court found that the GM could not sufficiently rebut this explanation to show it was pretext for age discrimination. The court also granted in part and denied in part the GM's motion for sanctions due to Brinker’s spoliation of evidence, awarding fees and costs but not excluding the TMR Report, which documented the termination decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the TMR Report could not be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 and was therefore inadmissible. The court vacated the district court’s order on sanctions and instructed it to consider whether additional sanctions beyond fees and costs were appropriate. The appellate court also reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Brinker, finding that the GM had provided sufficient evidence to rebut Brinker’s explanation and create a genuine issue of material fact regarding age discrimination. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the GM’s motion for summary judgment. View "Kean v. Brinker Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Ryan West, a former employee of Village Practice Management Company, LLC ("Village"), sought a declaratory judgment from the Court of Chancery of Delaware. West argued that Village could not declare a forfeiture of his vested Class B Units after he joined a competitor post-employment, as the Agreement did not limit post-employment competitive activities. Village contended that West forfeited his vested Class B Units by joining a competitor, invoking the Management Incentive Plan's ("Plan") forfeiture provisions.The Court of Chancery denied Village's motion to stay proceedings and compel West to submit his claims to Village's Compensation Committee. The court then granted West's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Agreement only restricted "detrimental activity" during employment. Consequently, Village could not enforce a forfeiture of West's vested Class B Units for activities occurring after his resignation. The court also awarded West his attorneys' fees.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery's decision. The Supreme Court found that the term "Participant" in the Agreement could reasonably be interpreted to include former employees, making the Agreement ambiguous. Therefore, the grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of West was improper. The Supreme Court also reversed the award of attorneys' fees to West, as he was no longer the prevailing party. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Chancery's denial of Village's request for a stay, distinguishing the case from others that required disputes to be resolved by a committee first. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Village Practice Management Company, LLC v. West" on Justia Law