Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Sarah Lindsley filed a discrimination lawsuit against her employer, Omni Hotels Management Corporation, alleging sex-based pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lindsley claimed that her initial salary was set too low due to her sex, causing her to earn less than her male colleagues despite subsequent raises. She also alleged that she faced harassment and that her complaints about pay discrepancies were ignored.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially granted summary judgment in favor of Omni on all claims. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for trial on the pay-discrimination claims under Title VII and the EPA. At trial, the jury found Omni not liable under the EPA but awarded Lindsley over $25 million in Title VII damages despite finding no liability under Title VII. The district court deemed the jury's answers inconsistent, amended the verdict form, and ordered further deliberation. The jury then found for Lindsley on her Title VII claim, again awarding over $25 million in damages, which the district court reduced under the statutory cap.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court did not err in handling the first verdict form but did err in handling the second verdict form. The appellate court found that the jury's answers in the second verdict form were inconsistent, as they found that any pay disparity resulted from a factor other than sex (an affirmative defense to both the EPA and Title VII claims) but still awarded Title VII damages. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Lindsley v. Omni Hotels" on Justia Law

Harold Winston, an African-American male with over 30 years of service, sued his employer, the County of Los Angeles, alleging race-based discrimination, retaliation, and failure to maintain a discrimination-free environment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. While the case was pending, section 1102.5 was amended to allow courts to award reasonable attorney fees to prevailing whistleblower plaintiffs. After the jury found in Winston’s favor on his retaliation claim under section 1102.5, he filed a motion for attorney fees based on the new provision.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Winston’s motion for attorney fees, ruling that the fee provision did not apply retroactively to his case, which was filed in 2019 before the amendment took effect. The court found no legislative intent supporting retroactive application and noted that Winston did not prevail on his FEHA claims, which could have provided a basis for attorney fees.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that a new statute authorizing an award of attorney fees applies to actions pending on the statute’s effective date. The court cited case precedent establishing that newly enacted attorney fee provisions are procedural and apply to pending litigation. The court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to determine the appropriateness and reasonableness of Winston’s fee request. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Winston v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Regena Strable, a marketing director at Altoona Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, injured her left ankle at work, leading to permanent partial disability. This injury caused further physical injuries to her hip and lower back, as well as mental injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. Strable had previously suffered carpal tunnel injuries to both wrists a decade earlier. After settling with her employer for the ankle injury and the sequela injuries, Strable sought benefits from the Second Injury Fund of Iowa based on her prior carpal tunnel injuries.The deputy commissioner denied Strable’s request for benefits from the Fund, concluding that Iowa Code section 85.64 imposes liability on the Fund only when the second injury is limited to a scheduled injury. The Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner disagreed and granted benefits. On judicial review, the Iowa District Court for Polk County reversed the Commissioner’s decision, agreeing with the deputy commissioner that awarding benefits from the Fund would result in double recovery for Strable.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s order. The court held that the Fund is liable under Iowa Code section 85.64 if the first and second qualifying injuries caused a compensable injury to an enumerated member, regardless of whether the injuries caused other non-enumerated or unscheduled injuries. The court found that the Commissioner erred in calculating the Fund’s liability by not including the employer’s liability for the sequela injuries. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for a determination of the amount and timing of the Fund’s liability, consistent with the court’s opinion. View "Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Strable" on Justia Law

An employee, Ashley Koester, worked as a mobile crisis counselor for Eyerly-Ball Community Health Services. She believed she was entitled to overtime compensation for her on-call hours and filled out timesheets accordingly, which were approved by her supervisor. Later, her employer objected to the overtime payments and terminated her employment. Koester sued her employer under Iowa Code chapter 91A and for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, claiming she was terminated for asserting her right to overtime pay.The Iowa District Court for Polk County dismissed Koester's claims, ruling that she did not have a claim under chapter 91A because she had been paid in full, including for the overtime hours she claimed. The court also found her statutory claim time-barred. Koester appealed, and the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of her public policy claim but affirmed the dismissal of her statutory claim.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Koester did not state a claim for relief under chapter 91A or the common law tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The court held that chapter 91A is a wage collection law, not a generalized fair practices law, and since Koester did not have a claim for unpaid wages, she was not entitled to relief. The court also determined that Koester's public policy claim failed because she was not engaged in protected activity under the statute, as she did not file a complaint or claim unpaid wages before her termination. The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the District Court's judgment dismissing Koester's claims. View "Koester v. Eyerly-Ball Community Mental Health Services" on Justia Law

Jorge Baez sued BayMark Detoxification Services, Inc., alleging disability discrimination under Massachusetts law, claiming BayMark Detox was his former employer. Baez was repeatedly informed that he had sued the wrong party but did not amend his complaint in time. BayMark Detox moved for summary judgment, asserting it was never Baez's employer. Baez then requested to amend his complaint to name the correct employer, but the district court granted summary judgment to BayMark Detox, denied Baez's Rule 60(b) motion for relief, and ordered Baez to pay costs.Baez initially worked for Community Health Care, Inc. (CHC), which was acquired by BayMark Health Services, Inc. (BHS). During the COVID-19 pandemic, Baez worked from home but was later terminated after an audit revealed billing errors. Baez filed a discrimination complaint against BayMark Detox, which was removed to federal court. BayMark Detox, a separate entity from CHC, stated it never employed Baez. The district court set a deadline for amending pleadings, which Baez missed.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to BayMark Detox, finding no evidence that BayMark Detox was Baez's employer. The court denied Baez's request to amend his complaint, citing his failure to show good cause for the delay. The court also denied Baez's Rule 60(b) motion, rejecting the argument that Massachusetts procedural rules should apply. The court awarded costs to BayMark Detox.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, agreeing that Baez failed to name the correct employer and did not demonstrate good cause for amending his complaint late. The court also upheld the award of costs to BayMark Detox. View "Baez v. BayMark Detoxification Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Ashley Howell, a temporary pre-licensed psychiatric technician, was employed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) from January 2, 2020, to January 24, 2020. Howell was terminated after DSH discovered she was on medical leave from her previous job due to a 2017 sexual assault, which she did not disclose during her pre-employment health screening. Howell filed a lawsuit against DSH, claiming mental and physical disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).The Napa County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of DSH on Howell’s claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process. Howell dismissed her claim for failure to prevent discrimination. The jury found in favor of Howell on her mental disability discrimination claim, awarding her $36,751.25 in lost earnings and health insurance benefits but nothing for pain and suffering. The court denied Howell’s motion for a new trial on non-economic damages and granted DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, striking the award for lost health insurance benefits. Howell was awarded $135,102 in attorney fees and costs but did not receive a ruling on her request for prejudgment interest.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny Howell’s motion for a new trial and to grant DSH’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court found that Howell did not provide evidence of out-of-pocket expenses for lost health insurance benefits. The court also upheld the trial court’s award of $135,102 in attorney fees and costs, finding Howell’s request for $1.75 million to be unreasonable. However, the appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to address Howell’s request for prejudgment interest. View "Howell v. State Dept. of State Hospitals" on Justia Law

In 2015, Michael Shields, a mechanic for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA), injured his left shoulder. The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation approved his claim for left shoulder strain. In 2017, Shields sought benefits for a related right shoulder injury, which the bureau denied. Shields then sued in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, and in May 2022, a jury found him entitled to benefits for the right shoulder injury. The RTA appealed, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on April 27, 2023.Following the appellate court's decision, Shields filed a motion on May 8, 2023, seeking $26,221 in appellate attorney fees or a remand to the trial court to determine the fees. The RTA opposed, arguing the motion was untimely and that Shields had waived the issue by not seeking fees earlier. The appellate court ruled in favor of Shields, allowing him to recover appellate attorney fees and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's decision. The court held that a worker who prevails at trial in a workers’ compensation action may request attorney fees after obtaining an appellate judgment on the merits. The court emphasized that the workers’ compensation statute should be liberally construed in favor of employees and found no statutory requirement for the timing of such a request. The court dismissed the RTA's arguments regarding the timing and jurisdiction of the fee request and did not address the issue of fee caps, as it was not ripe for review. View "Shields v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation" on Justia Law

Paul Prinkey Jr. was injured while working for Emerine’s Towing, Inc. on January 19, 2015. His workers' compensation claim was allowed for myocardial infarction, substantial aggravation of pre-existing coronary artery disease, and major depressive disorder. Prinkey filed his first application for permanent-total-disability (PTD) compensation on February 4, 2019, which was denied by the Industrial Commission of Ohio based on medical evaluations indicating he was capable of sedentary work. Prinkey filed a second application for PTD compensation on June 4, 2021, citing worsening symptoms.The Industrial Commission denied Prinkey’s second application, stating he failed to present evidence of new and changed circumstances as required by the amended R.C. 4123.58(G). The commission's staff hearing officer (SHO) found no jurisdiction to address the application due to the lack of new evidence. Prinkey sought a writ of mandamus from the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which returned the matter to the commission for further proceedings, finding the SHO's order lacked adequate explanation and evidence.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Tenth District's decision. The court held that the SHO failed to comply with the requirements of State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., which mandates that the commission must specifically state the evidence relied upon and briefly explain the reasoning for its decision. The court found that the SHO did not provide sufficient reasoning or cite specific evidence to support the conclusion that Prinkey failed to present new and changed circumstances. Consequently, the case was returned to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings. View "State ex rel. Prinkey v. Emerine's Towing, Inc." on Justia Law

Todd Halbur was terminated from his position as comptroller of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division (ABD). Halbur claimed he was fired in retaliation for reporting to his supervisor, Stephen Larson, that ABD was violating Iowa law by exceeding the 50% markup on liquor sales and for refusing to engage in illegal acts related to a service contract with Beverage Merchandising, Inc. (BMI). Halbur filed a lawsuit against Larson, asserting a statutory claim for wrongful discharge under Iowa Code section 70A.28 and a common law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The district court submitted the statutory claim to a jury but dismissed the common law claim, ruling that the statutory claim was the exclusive remedy. The jury awarded Halbur $1 million, which was reduced due to a statutory cap on damages.The Iowa District Court for Polk County dismissed Halbur’s common law wrongful discharge claim, reasoning that the statutory claim under section 70A.28 provided a comprehensive remedy. The court also dismissed the statutory claims against the State of Iowa and ABD, allowing the claim to proceed only against Larson in his official capacity. Larson’s motion for summary judgment was initially granted in part but later reconsidered, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The jury found in favor of Halbur, awarding him damages.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case. Larson argued that Halbur’s internal complaints did not constitute protected disclosures under section 70A.28. However, the court found that Larson failed to preserve this issue for appeal by not raising it during trial through a motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On cross-appeal, Halbur argued that his common law claim should not have been dismissed. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the statutory remedy under section 70A.28 was exclusive and comprehensive, precluding the need for a common law claim. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Halbur v. Larson" on Justia Law

Newton Jones, the President of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, was removed from office and expelled from the Union by the Union’s Executive Council after it was determined that he had misused Union funds. Jones challenged the disciplinary proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, arguing that the proceedings violated the Union Constitution and his due-process rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). He also claimed that the district court erred by not allowing him sufficient time to respond to the motion for summary judgment and by not permitting discovery.The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Vice Presidents who had acted against Jones, affirming their decision to remove him from office. The court ruled that the Executive Council’s decision was binding and entitled to full effect. Jones then appealed the district court’s summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. The appellate court held that the Executive Council did not violate the Union Constitution in removing Jones from office. The court deferred to the Union’s interpretation of its constitutional provisions, concluding that the Council’s interpretations were not unreasonable. The court also found that Jones had not shown any violation of the LMRDA or any error by the district court in conducting the summary-judgment proceedings.The Tenth Circuit concluded that Jones received a full and fair hearing under the LMRDA and that the district court did not err in setting an expedited briefing schedule or in not allowing additional time for discovery. The court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment. View "International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. Jones" on Justia Law