Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Efrain Oliveras-Villafañe, Mirta Rosario-Montalvo, and their conjugal partnership (collectively, "Appellants") filed a lawsuit against Baxter Healthcare SA and related entities ("Appellees"), alleging unlawful discrimination. Oliveras worked for Baxter from 1990 until 2019, holding various positions, including Engineering Director. In 2018, he was transferred to a lower position, which he claimed was part of a discriminatory effort to remove senior Puerto Rican personnel. In 2019, his position was eliminated, and he chose termination over accepting two part-time roles. He filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC in May 2019.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. The court found that the Appellants failed to comply with Local Rule 56(c) and disregarded non-compliant facts. It dismissed the Title VII claims, ruling that the EEOC charge did not encompass the February 2018 transfer and was untimely. The court also found that the Appellants did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination regarding the March 2019 termination. The remaining claims were dismissed based on the Appellants' concessions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court noted that the Appellants failed to challenge the district court's finding that the EEOC charge did not encompass the February 2018 transfer, leaving an independent ground for affirmance. The court emphasized that arguments must be clearly articulated and supported, and the Appellants' failure to address the exhaustion issue was fatal to their appeal. Thus, the district court's decision was upheld. View "Oliveras-Villafane v. Baxter Healthcare SA" on Justia Law

Robert L. Palmer, a long-time employee of Union Pacific, alleged that the company discriminated against him due to his disability, diabetes, which led to diabetic retinopathy. After undergoing surgery for his right eye in 2011, Palmer continued working until November 2013, when his left eye developed blurred vision. Union Pacific then initiated a fitness-for-duty evaluation, resulting in a February 2014 letter from Dr. Holland, the Chief Medical Officer, imposing permanent work restrictions on Palmer. Despite submitting medical information from his eye doctor in May 2014, which cleared him for work, Palmer received a December 2014 letter reaffirming the permanent restrictions and stating that no further medical information would be considered.Palmer was part of a putative class action (Harris class) filed in February 2016, which alleged that Union Pacific's fitness-for-duty policy discriminated against employees with disabilities. The class was certified in February 2019 but decertified in March 2020. Palmer then filed an individual charge of discrimination with the EEOC in April 2020 and subsequently filed this action under the ADA, claiming his suit was timely due to tolling during the class action.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed Palmer's claims as time-barred, concluding that the only adverse employment action occurred in February 2014, outside the class definition period. Palmer's motion to reconsider or amend was denied, as the court found the December 2014 letter was not a separate adverse action but a consequence of the February 2014 action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court relied on an outdated standard for adverse employment actions. Under the new standard from Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Palmer's allegations that the December 2014 letter caused him harm by denying future review opportunities were sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of reconsideration and leave to amend, remanding for further proceedings. View "Palmer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

James Hess filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad Company, claiming he was unlawfully terminated due to his disability. Union Pacific has a "Fitness-for-Duty" policy requiring employees to disclose certain health conditions. Hess, who began working for Union Pacific in May 2013, was prescribed Xanax for post-traumatic stress disorder in 2015. In 2016, Union Pacific prohibited medications like Xanax, and in January 2017, Hess was removed from service and later disqualified from his job following a fitness-for-duty evaluation.The District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed Hess's action as untimely, agreeing with Union Pacific that the statute of limitations was not tolled while the Harris class action was pending because Hess was not a member of the certified class. The Harris class action, filed in 2016, alleged that Union Pacific's fitness-for-duty policy discriminated against employees with disabilities. The class was initially defined broadly but was later certified under a narrower definition, excluding Hess. The class was decertified by the Eighth Circuit in March 2020, after which Hess filed an EEOC charge and received a right-to-sue letter.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Citing its recent decision in DeGeer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., the court held that Hess was entitled to American Pipe tolling because he was not unambiguously excluded from the certified class. Therefore, the statute of limitations was tolled until the class was decertified. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that Hess's lawsuit was timely filed. View "Hess v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The case involves a workplace accident where the decedent sustained severe head injuries, resulting in a persistent vegetative state and eventual death. The decedent's workers' compensation claim was allowed for several conditions, and he sought scheduled-loss compensation for the loss of use of his bilateral upper and lower extremities. The Industrial Commission of Ohio initially denied this claim, concluding that the loss of use was due to brain injury, not direct injury to the extremities.The decedent filed a mandamus action challenging the denial, but it was dismissed after his death. Subsequently, his surviving spouse, Byk, filed a motion with the commission for scheduled-loss compensation under R.C. 4123.57(B) and 4123.60. The commission denied this motion, stating that the decedent's entitlement to the loss-of-use award had already been determined and denied.Byk then filed a mandamus action in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which granted a limited writ directing the commission to vacate its order and issue a new order adjudicating the merits of Byk’s claim. The commission and Republic Steel appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the Tenth District's judgment. The court held that Byk was not entitled to scheduled-loss compensation under R.C. 4123.60 because the decedent was not "lawfully entitled to have applied" a second time for the same scheduled-loss compensation that had already been denied. The court emphasized that the statutory language did not authorize an injured worker to reapply for the same compensation after a final denial. Consequently, Byk's request for a writ of mandamus was denied. View "State ex rel. Byk v. Indus. Comm." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Ann Gima, was employed by the City and County of Honolulu's Department of Budget and Fiscal Services (BFS) for over twenty years. After being promoted to Real Property Technical Officer (RPTO) in 2012, Gima alleged that her supervisor, Robert Magota, began verbally harassing her, leading to her diagnosis of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. Gima was placed on workers' compensation leave intermittently from 2014 to 2018. In November 2017, she requested a reasonable accommodation to work under a different supervisor, which was denied. Magota retired in December 2017, and Gima returned to work in February 2018 under a new supervisor, Steven Takara. Shortly after, she received a substandard performance evaluation and was demoted.Gima filed claims with the Hawai‘i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) for disability discrimination and retaliation and subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that Gima failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination or retaliation and that her request for an alternate supervisor was unreasonable as a matter of law.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case. The court held that Gima established a prima facie case of disability discrimination, as she demonstrated she had a disability, was qualified for her position, and was demoted because of her disability. The court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the City’s reasons for her negative evaluation and demotion were pretextual. The court also held that Gima’s request for an alternate supervisor was not unreasonable as a matter of law and that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City could have assigned her a different supervisor.However, the court concluded that the City engaged in an interactive process to accommodate Gima by offering her a position in another department, which she declined after Magota retired. The court also found that Gima established a prima facie case of retaliation, as she engaged in protected activities, suffered adverse employment actions, and demonstrated a causal connection between the two. The court affirmed in part and vacated in part the circuit court’s order, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Gima v. City and County of Honolulu" on Justia Law

Employees of United Airlines, including pilots, flight attendants, and other staff, challenged the company's COVID-19 vaccination mandate and masking requirement issued in 2021. United required employees to either get vaccinated or apply for religious or medical exemptions by specific deadlines. Plaintiffs alleged that despite submitting or attempting to submit exemption requests, they were either fired, placed on unpaid leave, or subjected to a hostile work environment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, finding that they had not stated any viable claim for relief despite having sufficient opportunities to do so. The court addressed each of the plaintiffs' twelve claims, noting that many were forfeited due to the plaintiffs' failure to respond to substantive arguments. The court also found deficiencies in the proposed amended complaints and ultimately dismissed the action with prejudice after determining that further amendments would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs' claims were either improperly preserved or inadequately pled. The court found that the plaintiffs had forfeited their FDCA, invasion of privacy, and negligence claims by failing to address the district court's findings of forfeiture. The court also upheld the dismissal of the Illinois Whistleblower Act claim, as the plaintiffs did not show how receiving a COVID-19 vaccine would violate federal regulations. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Title VII claims due to the plaintiffs' failure to obtain right-to-sue letters from the EEOC, which is a prerequisite for such lawsuits. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not err in denying further opportunities to amend the complaint. View "Anderson v. United Airlines" on Justia Law

Nakul Karkare, a surgeon affiliated with AA Medical, P.C., brought an action against the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers Local 580 (the Union) to recover unpaid benefits under section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Karkare, holding a power of attorney for Patient JN, claimed the Union failed to fully reimburse AA Medical for surgical services provided to Patient JN, a beneficiary under the Union’s self-funded insurance plan. The Union reimbursed only $1,095.92 of the $153,579.94 billed by AA Medical.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the complaint sua sponte, concluding that a power of attorney did not permit Karkare to maintain an ERISA cause of action on behalf of Patient JN, as it was distinct from an assignment of claim. Karkare did not provide proof of a valid assignment but argued that the power of attorney was sufficient. The district court disagreed and dismissed the complaint, later denying Karkare’s motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Karkare lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring the action. The court determined that Karkare was suing in his own name and not on behalf of Patient JN, despite holding a power of attorney. The court held that a power of attorney does not confer Article III standing to file suit in the attorney-in-fact’s own name. However, the court remanded the case to the district court to consider whether Patient JN should be permitted to be substituted into the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. The judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Karkare v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing" on Justia Law

Richard Mooney sued his former employer, Roller Bearing Company of America (RBC), alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Washington Family and Medical Leave Act (WFMLA). Mooney claimed his termination was due to his age, depression, and decision to take leave under the FMLA, while RBC argued it was due to a reduction in force in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mooney filed the lawsuit in King County Superior Court, and RBC removed the case to federal court under federal question and diversity jurisdiction. The jury found RBC liable and awarded Mooney $160,000 in damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington calculated prejudgment interest based on a fluctuating federal rate. Mooney appealed, arguing that the higher state rate should have applied. The district court concluded it had discretion to select the appropriate rate and chose the federal rate, finding it the most accurate way to compensate Mooney for the lost use of his wages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that when a judgment is based equally on both state and federal claims, the district court has discretion to select a proper prejudgment interest rate. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the fluctuating federal rate was appropriate given the circumstances, including Mooney's litigation strategy and the combined nature of the state and federal claims. The court found no error in the district court's application of the federal rate and affirmed the judgment. View "Mooney v. Roller Bearing Company of America" on Justia Law

Matthew Kale sued his employer, Aero Simulation, Inc. (ASI), alleging religious and disability discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Constitution, and state law. ASI required all employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, with non-compliance resulting in disciplinary action, including termination. Kale requested a religious exemption, citing his belief that his body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and should not be subjected to unwanted intrusions. ASI denied his request, and Kale was terminated. He filed a charge with the EEOC, which issued a right to sue letter.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota dismissed Kale’s claims, ruling that he failed to plausibly plead religious beliefs conflicting with ASI’s Covid-19 policy, did not allege that ASI regarded him as disabled due to his unvaccinated status, and that his proposed amended complaint was futile. Kale appealed the dismissal of his federal law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that Kale failed to allege facts showing that ASI’s testing requirement conflicted with his bona fide religious beliefs. The court noted that Kale’s complaint did not adequately connect his objection to testing with specific religious principles. Additionally, the court found that Kale did not exhaust his administrative remedies for his ADA claim, as he only asserted religious discrimination in his EEOC charge. The court also upheld the denial of Kale’s motion to amend his complaint, deeming it futile as it contained the same deficiencies as the original complaint. The judgment was affirmed. View "Kale v. Aero Simulation, Inc." on Justia Law

Matthew Bare sued his former employer, Rainforest Alliance, Inc., in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging that the company failed to pay him a redundancy settlement after his position was made redundant due to a reorganization. Bare claimed that he had agreed to resign in exchange for the settlement, which was contingent upon his execution of a release-of-claims agreement. However, after Bare made critical comments about the company, Rainforest Alliance terminated him and refused to pay the settlement, leading to claims of breach of contract and violation of the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law.The Superior Court dismissed Bare's complaint with prejudice, agreeing with Rainforest Alliance that Bare had failed to allege the occurrence of a condition precedent—specifically, the execution of a release agreement. The court found that without alleging this, Bare could not claim he had earned the redundancy payment under the contract or the wage law. Bare had argued that the issue of the condition precedent was a factual matter for summary judgment or trial and that Rainforest Alliance had waived the condition by not providing a release agreement. He also requested leave to amend his complaint if the motion to dismiss was granted.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the trial court should have granted Bare's request to amend his complaint. The appellate court found that Bare's request to amend was his first, the case had been pending for a short time, there was no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motives, and there was no prejudice to Rainforest Alliance. The court also determined that Bare's proposed amendment, which would include allegations that Rainforest Alliance waived the condition precedent by not providing a release agreement, was not futile. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bare v. Rainforest Alliance, Inc." on Justia Law