Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, an adjunct professor at New York University (NYU), experienced offensive and demeaning conduct from her colleagues, including unsolicited offensive mail and online impersonation. She reported these incidents to NYU, which conducted investigations and took measures to limit the impact on her. However, dissatisfied with NYU's response, she filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against NYU and certain administrators, as well as the individuals she claimed were responsible for the conduct against her. The lawsuit alleged discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The federal court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that NYU responded negligently or that her termination was a pretext for discrimination. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (State HRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL), dismissing those claims without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and the Second Circuit affirmed.While her appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed a nearly identical suit in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, alleging violations of the State and City HRLs, renewing her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, adding another NYU administrator as a defendant, and asserting a new protected category of disability. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint as barred by collateral estoppel and for failing to state a claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, and the plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the plaintiff's claims were barred by collateral estoppel based on the findings of the federal district court. The court also held that the individual defendants, who were the plaintiff's co-workers rather than her supervisors, could not be held liable under the City HRL. The court noted that while the City HRL provides for individual liability, it does so only for those who have a role in administering the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's employment. View "Russell v New York Univ." on Justia Law

This case revolves around an employment dispute where Renee Vines sued his former employer, O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), alleging causes of action for race- and age-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. A jury found in his favor on his causes of action for retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation, but against him on his other causes of action. Vines moved for statutory attorneys’ fees, which the trial court granted but awarded only a portion of the requested amount. Vines appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in its determination of the fees.The trial court had initially awarded Vines a reduced amount of attorneys’ fees, based on its determination that Vines's unsuccessful discrimination and harassment causes of action were not closely related to or factually intertwined with his successful retaliation causes of action. Vines appealed this decision, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in its determination. On remand, the trial court awarded Vines a significantly larger amount in fees.O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, appealed from the order denying its motion to vacate the renewal of judgment, challenging only the amount of interest on the award of attorneys’ fees. O’Reilly argued that, because the appellate court's decision in the prior appeal was a reversal, not a modification, of the trial court’s initial order, interest on the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded should run from the date of the second order, not the first. The appellate court agreed with O’Reilly, reversed the order denying O’Reilly’s motion to vacate the renewed judgment, and directed the trial court to grant the motion. View "Vines v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises" on Justia Law

In February 2022, Workers United sought to represent 90 employees at a Starbucks Reserve Roastery in Seattle. Due to rising COVID-19 cases, the Regional Director ordered a mail-ballot election, which took place in April 2022. Starbucks refused to recognize and bargain with the union, arguing that the Regional Director should have ordered an in-person election. The Regional Director overruled Starbucks' objection and certified the election results. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Starbucks' refusal to recognize and bargain with the union constituted unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act.The NLRB's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Starbucks argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement application because the NLRB had severed the question of whether to adopt a compensatory remedy. The court rejected this argument, holding that the NLRB's order was final and reviewable under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e).Starbucks also claimed that the Regional Director abused his discretion by ordering a mail-ballot election instead of an in-person one. The court rejected this argument as well, holding that the Regional Director had correctly applied the NLRB's own law in deciding to hold a mail-ballot election. The court affirmed the NLRB's finding that Starbucks had violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain. The court granted the NLRB's application for enforcement of its order directing Starbucks to recognize and bargain with the union. View "NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SIREN RETAIL CORPORATION DBA STARBUCKS" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff, an employee of Frank Lill & Son, Inc., claimed to have sustained two separate injuries during his employment. He sent a written notice of claim to his employer and the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The employer, within twenty-eight days of receiving the plaintiff’s notice of claims, mailed a notice of intention to contest the plaintiff’s right to compensation benefits. However, the administrative law judge did not receive the notice of intention until after the twenty-eight day statutory period had elapsed. The plaintiff then filed a motion to preclude the defendants from contesting liability, arguing that the employer had failed to commence payment of the claims or to file a notice of intention to contest the claims within the required timeframe.The administrative law judge granted the plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the employer had failed to meet the requirements of the statute, and therefore, the defendants were presumed to have accepted the compensability of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries and were precluded from contesting his claims. The Compensation Review Board upheld the administrative law judge’s decision.The case was then brought before the Connecticut Supreme Court. The defendants argued that they had met their statutory obligation by mailing the notice within the statutory period, and that "mailing" should be considered the same as "filing" for the purposes of the statute. However, the court disagreed, stating that the statutory language was clear that the notice of intention to contest must be delivered, not just mailed, to the administrative law judge within the specified timeframe. The court also noted that the use of different terms in the same statute suggested that the legislature intended for the terms to have different meanings. The court affirmed the decision of the Compensation Review Board, ruling that the employer had not met its statutory obligation. View "Ajdini v. Frank Lill & Son, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Lizbeth Balderas, a former employee of Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc., who filed a complaint for civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) on behalf of herself and 500 other current and former employees. Balderas alleged that Fresh Start violated labor laws by not providing required meal and rest breaks, providing inaccurate wage statements, making untimely wage payments, and failing to pay wages at termination. Balderas did not file an individual claim but proceeded solely under PAGA, representing all aggrieved employees.The trial court struck Balderas's complaint, ruling that she lacked standing to bring a representative PAGA action on behalf of other employees because she did not allege an individual claim in the action. The court relied on language from a United States Supreme Court decision that had incorrectly recited California law on PAGA standing.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six reviewed the case. The court concluded that Balderas, as an alleged aggrieved employee who was subject to alleged Labor Code violations by Fresh Start, may bring a representative PAGA action on behalf of herself and other Fresh Start employees, even though she did not file an individual cause of action seeking individual relief for herself in this action. The court held that the trial court erred by relying on the United States Supreme Court decision, which was incorrect on PAGA standing requirements. The court reversed the order striking the pleading. View "Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2015, Joseph Semprini filed a lawsuit against his employer, Wedbush Securities, Inc., alleging 11 personal causes of action and seven class claims for alleged wage and hour violations. Semprini and Wedbush agreed that Semprini’s personal claims would be arbitrated, while the remaining claims would proceed in court. The class was certified in 2017, and the parties litigated Semprini’s class and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims in court over the next several years. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that an employer may enforce an employee’s agreement to arbitrate individual PAGA claims. Following this decision, Wedbush asked its workforce to sign arbitration agreements, and 24 class members, including the second named plaintiff, Bradley Swain, agreed to do so.The Superior Court of Orange County denied Wedbush’s motion to compel arbitration of the named plaintiffs’ individual PAGA claims and the claims of the 24 class members who signed arbitration agreements. The court found that Wedbush had waived its right to compel arbitration by entering into the 2015 stipulation.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that even if the Viking River decision or the 2022 arbitration agreements gave Wedbush a new right to move to compel certain claims to arbitration, Wedbush waited too long to make its motion, particularly in light of the looming trial date. The court found that Wedbush had waived its right to compel arbitration by waiting nine months after the Viking River decision and five to six months after select class members signed the new arbitration agreements to file its motion to compel arbitration. View "Semprini v. Wedbush Securities Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Euna McGruder, who was terminated from her position as the Executive Officer of Priority Schools for the Nashville public school system, operated by Metro Nashville, after she investigated allegations of racial discrimination at a Nashville middle school. McGruder sued Metro Nashville in 2017, alleging that her termination constituted illegal retaliation in violation of Title VII. In 2021, a jury awarded McGruder $260,000 for her claim, and the district court ordered Metro Nashville to reinstate her to her previous position.After the trial, Metro Nashville discovered that McGruder had failed to disclose the existence of her Title VII claim to the bankruptcy court when she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2018. Metro Nashville argued that McGruder's claims should be barred by judicial estoppel due to her failure to disclose her cause of action against Metro Nashville in her bankruptcy filing. The district court concluded that it could not exercise jurisdiction over Metro Nashville’s judicial estoppel claim, given that Metro Nashville’s earlier notice of appeal had divested the court of jurisdiction over the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's reinstatement order and dismissed Metro Nashville's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that judicial estoppel does not bar McGruder's reinstatement. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering McGruder's reinstatement. The court did not have jurisdiction to apply judicial estoppel to the non-final and therefore non-appealable jury award, forthcoming back pay trial, or award of attorneys’ fees. View "McGruder v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville" on Justia Law

Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a police officer in the St. Louis Police Department, alleged that she was transferred from her position in the Intelligence Division to a uniformed job in another department because of her gender. Despite maintaining her rank and pay, Muldrow's responsibilities, perks, and schedule were significantly altered. She filed a Title VII suit against the City of St. Louis, claiming that the transfer constituted sex discrimination with respect to her employment terms and conditions.The District Court granted the City summary judgment, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Muldrow had to show that the transfer caused her a "materially significant disadvantage." The courts ruled that since the transfer did not result in a reduction to her title, salary, or benefits and only caused minor changes in working conditions, Muldrow's lawsuit could not proceed.The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed with the lower courts' interpretation of Title VII. The Court held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. The Court rejected the City's arguments based on statutory text, precedent, and policy, and vacated the judgment of the Eighth Circuit, remanding the case for further proceedings under the correct Title VII standard. The Court clarified that Muldrow only needed to show some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions, not that the harm was significant. View "Muldrow v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law

The case involves Tracy White, an employee of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS), who filed a lawsuit against the State of Iowa and DHS under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) alleging a hostile work environment. White's complaints about her supervisor led to his termination, but she remained employed at the agency. The jury awarded her $260,000 for past emotional distress and $530,000 for future emotional distress. The State appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove White's hostile work environment claim, that the district court erred by admitting certain evidence and incorrectly instructing the jury, and that the future emotional distress damages were excessive.The district court had denied the State's pretrial motion to exclude certain evidence, referred to as "me too" evidence, as unduly prejudicial. This evidence consisted of reports of alleged discrimination experienced by other employees, which White, as a supervisor, had received and relied on to support her own hostile work environment claim. The State argued that such evidence, of which White was unaware, could not prove that she personally experienced a hostile work environment.The Supreme Court of Iowa agreed with the State, concluding that the harassment White personally experienced was not objectively severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms or conditions of her employment. The court held that the district court erred by denying the State's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The court reversed the judgment for White and remanded the case for entry of an order granting the State's motion for JNOV. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

Two campus police officers at Shepherd University, Jay Longerbeam and Donald Buracker, were terminated due to alleged "misconduct" and "unprofessionalism" during two incidents in 2018 and 2019. The officers claimed that their termination was a result of age and disability discrimination, retaliation under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (HRA), violation of the West Virginia Whistle-blower Law, and common law wrongful discharge. The Circuit Court of Jefferson County granted summary judgment against both officers on all claims.The officers appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court erred in finding no genuine issues of material fact and in its handling of the burden-shifting paradigm. They contended that their conduct during the incidents was legally proper and that the court failed to consider intervening acts of reprisal which were more temporally proximate to their protected activity than their discharge.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found that the lower court erred in its handling of the "temporal proximity" issue and the burden-shifting paradigm. The court also found that the officers offered more than sufficient evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find retaliatory motivation. Therefore, the court reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment as to the officers’ whistle-blower and Harless claims and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment as to Buracker’s HRA disability discrimination claim, finding his evidence insufficient to create an inference of disability discrimination. View "Jay Longerbeam v. Shepherd University" on Justia Law