Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Heather Walters, a Direct Support Professional at Brandi’s Hope Community Services, a long-term care facility for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, noticed that a resident had been physically abused. She attempted to report the incident to her supervisors but received no response. Walters then took a photograph of the resident's injuries and shared it with a former coworker. After an internal investigation, Walters was fired for violating company policy and HIPAA regulations by taking and sharing the photograph. Walters filed a lawsuit against Brandi’s Hope and its CEO, Danny Cowart, for retaliatory discharge and malicious interference with employment.The County Court of Lee County found in favor of Walters, awarding her $100,000 in damages. The defendants appealed to the Lee County Circuit Court, which affirmed the lower court's decision. The defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower courts' decisions, finding that the Mississippi Vulnerable Persons Act and the public policy exception established in McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., Inc. were in conflict.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding no conflict between the Mississippi Vulnerable Persons Act and the public policy exception established in McArn. The court held that Walters was eligible to claim wrongful termination under McArn, as she was fired for reporting illegal activity. The court affirmed the jury's verdict that Brandi’s Hope terminated Walters because she reported the abuse. The case was remanded to the County Court of Lee County for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals' decision to render judgment in favor of Cowart on the malicious-interference-with-employment claim was not reviewed and thus stands. View "Brandi's Hope Community Services, LLC v. Walters" on Justia Law

The case involves pension plan participants, Evelyn Wilson and Stephen Bafford, who alleged that the plan administrator, the Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by not providing pension benefit statements automatically or on request, and by providing inaccurate pension benefit statements prior to their retirements. The district court initially dismissed the case, but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part the dismissal, allowing the plaintiffs to file amended complaints.Upon remand, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints, but the district court dismissed their claims again. The plaintiffs appealed once more to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit held that the lower court's prior mandate did not preclude the plaintiffs from pleading their claim for violation of ERISA on remand. The court also held that the plaintiffs stated a viable claim under ERISA by alleging that the plan administrator provided substantially inaccurate pension benefit statements.The court rejected the administrator’s argument that there were no remedies available for the ERISA violations the plaintiffs alleged. As a result, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "BAFFORD V. ADMINISTRATIVE CMTE. OF THE NORTHROP GRUMMAN PLAN" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Sterling Owens, an African American electric lineman, who worked for the Wyandotte County, Kansas Board of Public Utilities (BPU). BPU had a policy requiring all employees to maintain their primary residence in Wyandotte County. Owens, who also owned several properties, was accused of violating this policy. BPU conducted an investigation, which Owens claimed was discriminatory based on his race. He filed a formal workplace discrimination complaint, which led to an internal investigation that found no evidence of harassment or discrimination. Owens then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and was granted the right to sue in federal district court. He filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial. Owens was represented by two attorneys. His first-chair counsel, who had conducted all pretrial litigation, contracted COVID-19 midway through the trial and resorted to remote participation. The jury found BPU not liable on all counts. Owens appealed, asking for the jury’s verdict to be vacated and arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial and new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court emphasized that Owens failed to show he was prejudiced by the district court’s rulings. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Owens' motion for a mistrial and new trial. The court also rejected Owens' argument that his second-chair counsel's relative lack of experience led to prejudicial errors during the trial. The court concluded that Owens had not demonstrated that the alleged errors had a prejudicial impact on his right to a fair and impartial trial. View "Owens v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas" on Justia Law

Dr. Jennifer Seed, a former employee of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), filed a lawsuit against the EPA and the United States, alleging age discrimination. Seed claimed that she was involuntarily demoted to a junior position as older managers were replaced with younger employees. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the EPA, concluding that Seed had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim of age discrimination.The district court's decision was based on its finding that Seed had not provided direct evidence of discriminatory intent that would entitle her to a trial, nor had she provided indirect evidence that would give rise to an inference of discrimination. The court also found that Seed had not shown that she was treated less favorably than younger employees after her reassignment or that her treatment was based on her age.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed Seed's appeal, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of her reassignment claims because she lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court found that Seed had not demonstrated that a favorable court decision would likely redress her claimed injuries. The court therefore remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the grant of summary judgment and to dismiss the reassignment claim for lack of standing. View "Seed v. EPA" on Justia Law

The case involves Christine Savage, a police officer who filed a lawsuit against the Neptune Township Police Department and others for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2014, which included a non-disparagement clause. Savage filed a second lawsuit in 2016, alleging continued and intensified discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The parties entered into another settlement agreement in 2020, which also included a non-disparagement clause. After a television interview with Savage aired in 2020, the defendants claimed that Savage violated the non-disparagement provision of the settlement agreement.The trial court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the second settlement agreement, finding that the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) barred only non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, and that Savage violated a non-disparagement clause. The Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding the non-disparagement clause enforceable but holding that Savage had not violated it.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the non-disparagement clause in the settlement agreement is against public policy and cannot be enforced. The court found that the LAD protects Savage’s statements. The court concluded that the non-disparagement clause in the agreement directly conflicts with the LAD as it encompasses and would bar speech the statute protects. The court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. View "Christine Savage v. Township of Neptune" on Justia Law

The case involves Gustavo Naranjo and other plaintiffs who worked as guards for Spectrum Security Services, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that Spectrum violated state regulations governing meal breaks by not providing legally compliant meal breaks and failing to pay an additional hour of pay, known as "premium pay," for each day on which this occurred. The plaintiffs also claimed that Spectrum violated Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, and 226 by not timely paying owed meal break premiums as wages to employees once they were discharged or resigned, and by not reporting the premium pay it owed as wages on employees’ wage statements.The case has been through multiple stages of litigation. Initially, the trial court granted summary judgment for Spectrum, but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal. On remand, the trial court certified a class for the meal break and related timely payment and wage statement claims and held a trial in three phases. The trial court found that Spectrum had violated sections 203 and 226 by failing to pay and report the missed-break premium pay as wages. However, it issued a split decision on the question of penalties. It ruled in Spectrum’s favor regarding section 203 penalties, finding that Spectrum’s defenses were presented in good faith and were not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. But it ruled against Spectrum regarding section 226 penalties, finding that Spectrum was liable for penalties because its failure to report premium pay for missed meal breaks in employees’ wage statements was “knowing and intentional and not inadvertent.”Both sides appealed the trial court’s ruling. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding that Spectrum had violated meal break laws between June 2004 and September 2007. But it reversed the trial court’s holding that Spectrum had violated section 203 and section 226 by failing to timely pay and report the meal break premium pay owed as “wages,” reasoning that the premium pay was instead in the nature of a penalty rather than compensation for work performed.The Supreme Court of California held that if an employer reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement in compliance with the requirements of section 226, then it has not knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the wage statement law. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reached the same conclusion. View "Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of former employees of Luxury Hotels International of Puerto Rico, operating as Ritz-Carlton Hotel Spa & Casino, sued the company for alleged violations of federal and Puerto Rico law in connection with their discharge after the hotel closed due to Hurricanes Irma and Maria. The employees claimed that Ritz-Carlton violated Puerto Rico Law 80 of 1976, which provides severance pay for employees wrongfully terminated, and the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, which requires employers to provide 60-day notice before mass layoffs.The case was initially filed in a Puerto Rico court but was later moved to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. After discovery, Ritz-Carlton moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment to Ritz-Carlton on all the employees' claims, denied the employees' motion to strike Ritz-Carlton's exhibits, and dismissed the case. The employees appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The court found that the employees' termination was for "just cause" under Puerto Rico Law 80, as the hotel's closure constituted just cause for their discharge. Regarding the WARN Act claim, the court concluded that even if there had been a violation, various payments that Ritz-Carlton had made to the employees would completely offset Ritz-Carlton's monetary liability. View "Rivera-Pina v. Luxury Hotels International of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

The case involves two plaintiffs, Michael Grim and Jim Maynard, who were employees of the Denton Municipal Electric (DME), a local electric utility owned by the City of Denton. The plaintiffs supported the construction of a controversial new power plant, the Denton Energy Center (DEC). Keely Briggs, a member of the Denton city council, opposed the new plant and leaked internal city documents about the project to a local newspaper. The plaintiffs reported Briggs's leak of confidential vendor information, alleging it violated the Public Information Act and the Open Meetings Act. They claimed that this report triggered the protections of the Whistleblower Act. The plaintiffs were later fired, which they alleged was retaliation for their report about Briggs.The case was initially heard in the district court, where the city argued that the Whistleblower Act did not apply because the plaintiffs did not report a violation of law "by the employing governmental entity or another public employee." The court was not convinced, and the case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a $4 million judgment for the plaintiffs. The city appealed, raising several issues, including the legal question of whether the Whistleblower Act applied in this case. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that the Whistleblower Act did not protect the plaintiffs because they reported a violation of law by a lone city council member, not by the employing governmental entity or another public employee. The court found that the lone city council member lacked any authority to act on behalf of the city, and her actions could not be imputed to the city. Therefore, her violation of law was not a "violation of law by the employing governmental entity." The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not allege a viable claim under the Whistleblower Act, and rendered judgment for the city. View "CITY OF DENTON v. GRIM" on Justia Law

David Steele filed a lawsuit against his employer, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI), alleging that the company had violated § 287.780 by retaliating and discriminating against him for filing a workers' compensation claim. Steele sought compensatory and punitive damages, arguing that JCI had acted with willful, deliberate, and reckless disregard for his rights. JCI did not file an answer or responsive pleading, and Steele subsequently filed a motion for default judgment and damages. The circuit court held a hearing regarding damages, during which Steele testified about his injuries and the discriminatory treatment he received from JCI. The court entered a default judgment for Steele, awarding him $300,000 in compensatory damages and $600,000 in punitive damages.JCI filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, citing Rules 75.01, 74.05(d), and 74.06(b)(1). JCI alleged that it had good cause for the default because its registered agent mislabeled the service documents and routed them to the incorrect section of JCI's legal department. The circuit court held a hearing on JCI's motion and subsequently overruled it, concluding that JCI failed to show good cause, a meritorious defense, or excusable neglect. JCI then filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court also overruled. JCI appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court found that JCI had failed to prove good cause for its default as required to set aside the default judgment pursuant to Rule 74.05(d). The court also found that JCI's reliance on Rules 75.01 and 74.06(b)(1) as alternate bases to set aside the default judgment was incorrect. Finally, the court ruled that JCI's defaulted claims asserting the circuit court plainly erred by awarding punitive damages in violation of § 510.2612 were not reviewable. View "Steele v. Johnson Controls, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over workers' compensation. The appellant, Brian Caldwell, was injured while working for the appellee, Whirlpool Corporation. After a successful initial workers’ compensation claim, Caldwell sought coverage for additional conditions a few years later. However, his claim for these additional conditions was denied after administrative hearings before the commission. Caldwell then appealed to a court of common pleas under R.C. 4123.512. The trial court and the court of appeals, in granting and affirming summary judgment in favor of Whirlpool, determined that Caldwell’s claim had expired as a matter of law because a separate statute, R.C. 4123.52, limited the commission’s continuing jurisdiction to five years from the date of the last payment of compensation on Caldwell’s initial claim and that five years had passed.The Supreme Court of Ohio disagreed with the lower courts' interpretation. The court held that when a workers’ compensation claimant perfects an appeal under R.C. 4123.512, the subsequent expiration of the commission’s five-year period of continuing jurisdiction under R.C. 4123.52 does not cause the claim that is pending in court to expire as a matter of law. The court reasoned that R.C. 4123.52, which establishes the continuing jurisdiction of the commission, does not affect R.C. 4123.512 court proceedings once they have been properly initiated. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Caldwell v. Whirlpool Corp." on Justia Law