Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Two employees of a publicly traded company raised concerns internally that the company had overstated its earnings by not accounting for slower-than-expected drilling speeds. Subsequently, an article in The Wall Street Journal reported similar allegations, and within three months, the company terminated both employees. The employees then filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, claiming their termination violated whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). An administrative proceeding resulted in a preliminary order for their reinstatement, which the company ignored.The employees sought to enforce the reinstatement order in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, interpreting the relevant statute as not granting it the power to enforce the preliminary order. The employees appealed this decision.While the appeal was pending, the employees chose to abandon the administrative process and filed a separate civil action in federal court. Consequently, the administrative proceedings were terminated. The company then moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the employees' request to enforce the preliminary reinstatement order no longer satisfied the redressability requirement for Article III standing. The preliminary order was extinguished with the dismissal of the administrative proceedings, and a federal court cannot enforce a non-existent order. Therefore, the employees lost Article III standing during the litigation, and no exception to mootness applied. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it on mootness grounds. View "Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp" on Justia Law

In this labor dispute, several employees sued their employer, a steel manufacturer, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Alabama common law. They claimed the company failed to pay wages for all hours worked, improperly calculated overtime, and delayed overtime payments. The plaintiffs sought relief for themselves and similarly situated employees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ordered the defendant to produce key time and pay records multiple times over two years. The defendant repeatedly failed to comply, offering various excuses and blaming its third-party payroll processor, ADP. The court eventually issued a default judgment against the defendant due to its continuous noncompliance and misrepresentations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to issue a default judgment, finding that the defendant's conduct warranted such a severe sanction. The appellate court also upheld the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to reconsider the sanctions, noting that the district court had the discretion to revisit its interlocutory orders but did not abuse that discretion in this case.The appellate court also affirmed the district court's determination that the plaintiffs' claims regarding workweek calculations and bonus payments were well-pleaded. However, the appellate court vacated and remanded the district court's calculation of damages, instructing the lower court to provide a more thorough explanation of its reasoning regarding the statute of limitations defense. View "Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Ephriam Rodriquez, a bus operator, was terminated by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) after accumulating excessive negative attendance points under his union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. His final absence on June 8, 2018, was due to a migraine headache. Following an informal hearing on June 26, where his discharge was recommended, Rodriquez applied for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and sought medical documentation to support his claim. Despite this, SEPTA held a formal hearing and approved his termination.Rodriquez filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging FMLA retaliation and interference. The jury found in favor of Rodriquez on the interference claim, awarding him $20,000 in economic damages, but ruled in favor of SEPTA on the retaliation claim. SEPTA then moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Rodriquez did not have a “serious health condition” under the FMLA at the time of his absence. The District Court granted SEPTA’s motion, leading to Rodriquez’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding that Rodriquez failed to demonstrate that his migraines constituted a “chronic serious health condition” as defined by the FMLA. Specifically, Rodriquez did not provide evidence of periodic visits to a healthcare provider for his migraines before his termination, which is a requirement under the FMLA regulations. The court concluded that there was no legally sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Rodriquez had a qualifying serious health condition at the time of his June 8 absence. View "Rodriquez v. SEPTA" on Justia Law

Armando P. Ibanez, a Mexican-American male, was employed by Texas A&M University–Kingsville (TAMUK) as an Assistant Professor of Communications/Radio-Television-Film. After five years, he applied for tenure and promotion to associate professor. TAMUK's requirements included the completion of at least two juried creative activities. Ibanez produced several creative works, but only one, a film titled "Men of Steel," was labeled as juried. His application for tenure and promotion was initially recommended by his departmental committee but was subsequently denied by the department chair, college committee, college dean, and provost, who cited his failure to meet the minimum requirements for juried creative activities.Ibanez appealed the decision, and an advisory committee found a prima facie case for reconsideration. The tenure appeals committee supported him, but the promotion appeals committee did not. Ultimately, the university president denied his tenure and promotion based on the negative recommendations and perceived lack of scholarship. Ibanez then sued TAMUK, alleging racial and national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of TAMUK, dismissing Ibanez’s claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that Ibanez failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he did not meet TAMUK’s baseline tenure requirements of two juried creative activities. Additionally, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact suggesting that Ibanez was denied tenure under circumstances permitting an inference of discrimination. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of TAMUK. View "Ibanez v. Texas A&M" on Justia Law

Heide Montoya, a former Superintendent of On-Board Services at Amtrak, was discharged in 2020 and later rehired to a different position. Montoya filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and other state-law claims. The litigation became complicated due to a dispute over arbitration. Amtrak argued that Montoya had agreed to arbitration by continuing to work after receiving an email notice. Montoya denied receiving the arbitration agreement, and the district judge could not resolve the issue due to a lack of definitive evidence.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, held a status hearing where the judge indicated that the evidence was insufficient to determine if an arbitration agreement existed. The judge suggested that the parties confer and possibly provide a joint statement on how to proceed. Instead of following these steps, Amtrak filed a notice of appeal, relying on §16(a)(1) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which allows interlocutory appeals from orders bypassing arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that §16 of the FAA only applies when the Act as a whole is applicable. Section 1 of the FAA excludes contracts of employment for railroad employees, among others, from its scope. Since Montoya was an Amtrak employee, the case falls outside the FAA. The court referenced similar cases and legal precedents, including Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon and Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, to support its conclusion. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit dismissed Amtrak's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the district court still needs to resolve whether Montoya agreed to arbitrate disputes under state law. View "Montoya v. National Railroad Passenger Corp." on Justia Law

The case involves eight multiemployer benefit plans (the "Funds") seeking to recover delinquent contributions from Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. for health, pension, and other benefits for sheet metal workers. The Funds allege that Stromberg underpaid contributions owed under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Union (SMART Union) by hiring temporary workers through staffing agencies without making the required contributions.Initially filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court denied Stromberg’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Funds’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and awarded the Funds over $823,000 in delinquent contributions and more than $430,000 in liquidated damages and interest. Stromberg appealed, challenging both the liability and damages rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s liability ruling, agreeing that the 2019 Settlement between Stromberg and Local 5 did not preclude the Funds from seeking delinquent contributions. The court emphasized that multiemployer benefit plans have distinct interests from local unions and are not bound by settlements to which they are not parties.However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s damages ruling. The appellate court concluded that while the Funds could rely on the CBA’s default staffing ratio to approximate damages due to Stromberg’s failure to maintain adequate records, Stromberg had presented sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Funds’ damages calculation. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address the disputed damages issue. View "Sheet Metal Workers' Health & Welfare Fund of North Carolina v. Stromberg Metal Works, Inc." on Justia Law

Tijuana Decoster, an African American, served as the Chief Grants Management Officer for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders & Stroke at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Her working relationship with her supervisor, Robert Finkelstein, deteriorated in 2019, leading to allegations of racial discrimination. Decoster claimed Finkelstein singled her out, treated her with contempt, and threatened to fire her. She was issued a Letter of Expectation and placed on an Opportunity to Demonstrate Acceptable Performance plan. Despite her complaints to Human Resources and Finkelstein, the alleged harassment continued, leading Decoster to retire in February 2020.Decoster filed a formal discrimination complaint with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in December 2019, alleging harassment, discrimination based on race, and retaliation. NIH's Final Agency Decision in November 2020 found that Decoster was subjected to retaliation but denied her other claims. Decoster then filed a complaint in the District of Maryland, raising three claims under Title VII: hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of Decoster’s hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims, finding that her allegations did not establish severe or pervasive conduct or intolerable working conditions. However, the court reversed the dismissal of her retaliation claim, holding that Decoster had sufficiently stated a plausible claim of retaliation under Title VII. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the retaliation claim. View "Decoster v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The City of Chicago’s Department of Water Management hired Tinka Vassileva as a Filtration Engineer (FE) in 2001. Vassileva, who started as an FE II, was promoted to FE III in July 2019. She applied unsuccessfully for promotions to FE V in April 2018 and FE IV in July 2019. Vassileva claimed that the City’s decisions not to interview her for these positions were based on age, gender, national origin, and retaliation for previous discrimination charges she filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the City on all claims. The court found that Vassileva did not provide sufficient evidence that her age, gender, national origin, or EEOC charges motivated the City’s decision not to interview her for the 2018 FE V position. Additionally, the court concluded that Vassileva had not administratively exhausted her claims related to the 2019 FE IV openings, as she failed to file an EEOC charge based on the City’s 2019 actions before filing the lawsuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Vassileva did not present evidence suggesting that the City’s explanation for not interviewing her in 2018 was pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The court also noted that Vassileva failed to show that the decision-maker was aware of her EEOC charges. Regarding the 2019 claims, the court found that Vassileva waived her argument about administrative exhaustion by not addressing it until oral argument. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Vassileva v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Michael Hermalyn, a former employee of DraftKings, left his position to join a rival company, Fanatics, based in California. DraftKings, headquartered in Massachusetts, claimed that Hermalyn's new role violated a noncompete agreement he had signed, which included a Massachusetts choice-of-law provision and a one-year noncompete clause. DraftKings sued Hermalyn in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for breach of the noncompete agreement.The district court sided with DraftKings, applying Massachusetts law to determine the enforceability of the noncompete agreement. The court found the noncompete enforceable and issued a preliminary injunction preventing Hermalyn from competing against DraftKings in the United States for one year. Hermalyn appealed, arguing that California law, which generally bans noncompetes, should apply instead of Massachusetts law. Alternatively, he argued that if Massachusetts law applied, the injunction should exclude California.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court examined whether the district judge abused her discretion in granting the preliminary injunction and whether she made any legal errors in applying Massachusetts law. The appellate court found that Massachusetts law was correctly applied, noting that Massachusetts generally respects choice-of-law provisions unless they violate a fundamental policy of another state with a materially greater interest. The court concluded that Hermalyn failed to demonstrate that California's interest in banning noncompetes was materially greater than Massachusetts's interest in enforcing them.The First Circuit also upheld the scope of the preliminary injunction, rejecting Hermalyn's argument to exclude California. The court reasoned that excluding California would undermine the effectiveness of the injunction, as Hermalyn's role involved interacting with clients in states where online sports betting is legal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision and awarded costs to DraftKings. View "DraftKings Inc. v. Hermalyn" on Justia Law

In October 2020, Elliot Fama, employed by Sanford Contracting, was working on a project in Scarborough, Maine. After work, he and his co-worker, Robert Clarke, consumed alcohol at a hotel and a tavern. Later, in the hotel parking lot, Clarke struck Mr. Fama, causing him to fall and sustain fatal injuries. Laureen Fama, Mr. Fama’s widow, settled a workers’ compensation claim in Massachusetts for $400,000.Laureen Fama then filed a lawsuit in Cumberland County Superior Court against Bob’s LLC, which operated the tavern, and Clarke. She alleged liquor liability, wrongful death, loss of consortium, and battery. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the workers’ compensation settlement precluded the lawsuit. The Superior Court denied these motions, leading to the current appeal.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It held that under Maine’s Workers’ Compensation Act (MWCA), Ms. Fama’s settlement barred her from suing Clarke, as the Act’s immunity provisions extend to co-employees. Consequently, Clarke was exempt from the lawsuit. The court further held that because Clarke could not be retained as a defendant, the claims against Bob’s LLC failed under the “named and retained” provisions of Maine’s Liquor Liability Act (MLLA).The court vacated the Superior Court’s order denying summary judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Bob’s LLC and Clarke. View "Fama v. Bob's LLC" on Justia Law