Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Jan Kuklenski was terminated by Medtronic USA, Inc. and subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that her termination violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) due to her disability. Kuklenski had worked for Medtronic since 1999 but had not resided in Minnesota. She occasionally traveled to Minnesota for work until the COVID-19 pandemic, after which she worked remotely. She went on medical leave in June 2021, and after her initial three-month leave expired, Medtronic filled her position and formally terminated her in December 2021.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of Medtronic, concluding that Kuklenski could not bring claims under the MHRA because she did not meet the statutory definition of an “employee,” which requires either residency or physical presence in Minnesota. The court found that Kuklenski had not been physically present in Minnesota for almost two years before her termination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, agreeing that the MHRA’s definition of “employee” requires some degree of physical presence in Minnesota. The court found that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, requiring that an individual must either reside or work within the physical limits of Minnesota to be protected under the MHRA. The court also denied Kuklenski’s request to certify the question to the Minnesota Supreme Court, noting that the case did not present a close question of state law and that certification was not appropriate given the circumstances.The Eighth Circuit held that the MHRA’s definition of “employee” necessitates physical presence in Minnesota, and since Kuklenski had not been physically present in the state for nearly two years, she did not qualify as an employee under the Act. View "Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Natasha Knox, a Black woman of Jamaican descent, worked as a customer service attendant at three Clean Rite laundromats in the Bronx from December 2018 until her termination in April 2019. She alleged that her supervisors, Cecilia Ashmeade and Kenneth Ferris, made derogatory comments about her race and national origin, and that Clean Rite failed to accommodate her disability following a thumb injury. Knox also claimed she was not paid for extra shifts worked at other locations and was wrongfully terminated after reimbursing herself for taxi fare from the cash register, which she claimed was permitted.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Clean Rite, dismissing Knox’s claims of discriminatory and retaliatory termination, hostile work environment, refusal to accommodate her disability, and unpaid wages. The district court found that Knox had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claims. Knox’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer and request for default judgment against Ashmeade and Ferris, who had failed to appear, was denied as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found that Knox had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on all her claims. The court noted that evidence such as Knox’s testimony and sworn affidavit could lead a reasonable jury to find in her favor. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings on each of Knox’s claims. The claims against Ashmeade and Ferris were reinstated for the district court to reconsider Knox’s motion to strike their answer and for default judgment. View "Knox v. CRC Management Co." on Justia Law

Sharon Lewis, a former employee of Louisiana State University (LSU) football department, reported sexual harassment by former head football coach Les Miles and assistant coach Frank Wilson. She claimed retaliation for these reports, including exclusion from meetings, restructuring of her position, and eventual termination in 2022. Lewis filed a lawsuit under Titles IX and VII against the LSU Board of Supervisors, alleging retaliation and hostile work environment.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana held a six-day trial, after which the jury found in favor of the Board on all claims. The district court entered judgment accordingly. Lewis filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial, which the district court denied. Lewis then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and denial of Lewis’s motions. The appellate court found that the jury had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that Lewis’s termination was part of a broader restructuring initiative by new head coach Brian Kelly, rather than retaliation for her Title IX and Title VII complaints. The court noted that Kelly and other key decision-makers were unaware of Lewis’s prior complaints at the time of her termination. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of a new trial, as the jury’s verdict was supported by the evidence presented. View "Lewis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, a tenured professor at a community college, filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and related claims against the Los Angeles Community College District and a vice president of student services. The alleged harassment occurred over an eight-month period in 2017, during which the vice president made inappropriate comments and advances towards the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed retaliation when she did not comply with his demands, including attempts to move her program and firing her staff.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County presided over the trial, where a jury awarded the plaintiff $10 million in noneconomic damages. The defendants filed motions for a new trial and partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict, citing prejudicial errors in the admission of evidence and excessive damages. These motions were denied by the trial judge, who made inappropriate and irrelevant comments during the post-trial hearing, leading to his disqualification for cause.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and found significant errors in the trial court's evidentiary rulings. The appellate court determined that the admission of 20-year-old newspaper articles and evidence of the vice president's misdemeanor convictions were prejudicial and irrelevant. Additionally, the testimony of a student who had filed a separate harassment complaint against a different administrator was improperly admitted, as it was not closely related to the plaintiff's circumstances and theory of the case.The appellate court concluded that these errors, combined with the excessive damages awarded, warranted a new trial. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The defendants were awarded costs on appeal. View "Odom v. L.A. Community College Dist." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Melissa Mandell-Brown, filed a complaint against Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Zamaneh Zamanian, asserting 16 causes of action, including claims for discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Labor Code, as well as common law claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by a separate statement of 161 undisputed facts, attorney declarations, and witness declarations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff failed to file an opposition or a separate statement in response to the motion. The court granted two continuances to the plaintiff, but she still did not file the required documents or appear at the continued hearing. The court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the plaintiff could not prove the elements of her causes of action.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(3), by granting the motion based on the plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite separate statement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that the trial court had the discretion to grant the motion for summary judgment due to the plaintiff's non-compliance with the procedural requirements, especially given the complexity of the case and the multiple continuances already granted. View "Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc." on Justia Law

Mitchell McBroom and Barbara Lewis-Baca, employees of the Missoula Urban Transportation District (MUTD) and members of the Teamsters Local 2 Union, were disciplined with three days of unpaid suspension for conducting union activity during work hours. They challenged this discipline through the grievance process outlined in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The grievance process concluded with a settlement on May 4, 2023, reducing the discipline to written warnings and granting backpay. Dissatisfied with the settlement, the employees filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) claim against MUTD on June 29, 2023.The Board of Personnel Appeals (BOPA) reviewed the ULP claim and determined that the six-month statute of limitations for filing the claim had expired. The employees argued that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled due to their reliance on the CBA grievance process. BOPA issued a final order affirming the initial determination that the statute of limitations had lapsed.The employees sought judicial review, arguing that BOPA erred in not tolling the statute of limitations. The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, concluded that BOPA did not err and that the employees could have filed their ULP claim before the expiration of the statute of limitations while the grievance process was ongoing. The employees then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the employees failed to file their ULP claim within the six-month statute of limitations. The court found that the CBA specifically excluded state law claims from the grievance process, and nothing prevented the employees from filing their ULP claim within the statutory period. The court concluded that the statute of limitations was not equitably tolled and upheld the dismissal of the ULP claim. View "McBroom v. Board of Personnel Appeals" on Justia Law

John Nawara, a former correctional officer at Cook County Jail, had several altercations with other county employees. As a result, the Cook County Sheriff's Office required him to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination and sign medical information release forms. Nawara initially resisted but eventually complied. Before doing so, he sued Cook County and Sheriff Thomas Dart, alleging that the examination requirement and inquiry into his mental health violated § 12112(d)(4) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found in favor of Nawara, but the jury awarded him zero damages. Nawara filed a post-trial motion requesting back pay, lost pension benefits, and restoration of his seniority. The court granted the restoration of seniority but denied the request for back pay, concluding that the violation of § 12112(d)(4) could not support an award of back pay. Nawara appealed the denial of back pay, and the Sheriff cross-appealed the restoration of seniority.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to restore Nawara's seniority, finding that it could still benefit him in his current role as a police officer within the Sheriff's Office. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of back pay. The Seventh Circuit held that a violation of § 12112(d)(4) of the ADA constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability, thus entitling Nawara to request back pay. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Nawara v Cook County Municipality" on Justia Law

Dr. Jeffery D. Milner, a physician, brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Baptist Health Montgomery, Prattville Baptist, and Team Health. Milner alleged that while working at a hospital owned by the defendants, he discovered that they were overprescribing opioids and fraudulently billing the government for them. He claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing after reporting the overprescription practices to his superiors.Previously, Milner filed an FCA retaliation lawsuit against the same defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court found that Milner did not sufficiently allege that he engaged in protected conduct under the FCA or that his termination was due to such conduct. Following this dismissal, Milner filed the current qui tam action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The district court dismissed this action as barred by res judicata, relying on the Eleventh Circuit's decisions in Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc. and Shurick v. Boeing Co.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that Milner's qui tam action was barred by res judicata because it involved the same parties and the same cause of action as his earlier retaliation lawsuit. The court found that both lawsuits arose from a common nucleus of operative fact: the defendants' alleged illegal conduct and Milner's discovery of that conduct leading to his discharge. The court also noted that the United States, which did not intervene in the qui tam action, was not barred from pursuing its own action in the future. View "Milner v. Baptist Health Montgomery" on Justia Law

Susan Kinder, a white woman, was employed by the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO) and alleged racial discrimination when she was reassigned to a new role. She claimed violations of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. Kinder had conflicts with a black colleague, Lydia Richardson, who accused her of making racially insensitive remarks. An investigation found the animosity was mutual. The prosecutor decided to reassign both employees, but Kinder viewed her new role as a demotion.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a right-to-sue letter on April 28, 2022, but Kinder’s counsel could not access it until July 6, 2022. Kinder filed her complaint on October 4, 2022, alleging Title VII and Equal Protection Clause violations. The MCPO moved for summary judgment, arguing the Title VII claim was untimely and that the office was not a suable entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment to the MCPO, finding the Title VII claim was filed outside the 90-day window and that the MCPO was an arm of the state, immune from § 1983 claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the 90-day period for filing the Title VII claim began when Kinder’s counsel was notified on June 15, 2022, that the right-to-sue letter was available, making the October 4 filing untimely. The court also held that the MCPO is an arm of the state and not a suable “person” under § 1983, as the office is financially interdependent with the state and enjoys state indemnification for employment-related actions. View "Kinder v Marion County Prosecutor's Office" on Justia Law

Mr. Dourdounas, a high school math teacher, was assigned to the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) in 2012. The ATR is a pool of teachers whose positions were eliminated but who were not terminated. In 2017, the DOE and UFT created a voluntary severance package for ATR teachers. Mr. Dourdounas, believing he was still in the ATR pool, applied for the severance package but was denied because the DOE claimed he had been permanently hired at Bronx International High School.Mr. Dourdounas followed the grievance process outlined in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the DOE and UFT. After exhausting the grievance process, including an internal appeal within the UFT, he commenced an article 78 proceeding against the City, alleging breach of contract for denying him the retirement incentive. The DOE moved to dismiss the petition on several grounds, including timeliness and failure to state a cause of action.The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as time-barred, and the Appellate Division affirmed, stating that the statute of limitations began when Mr. Dourdounas was informed of the denial in July 2017. The Appellate Division held that pursuing the grievance process did not toll the statute of limitations.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but on different grounds. The court held that under the precedent set in Ambach, an employee cannot seek judicial review of a claim arising under a CBA without alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by the union. Since Mr. Dourdounas did not allege such a breach, his claim was dismissed. The court also clarified that claims arising solely from a CBA must be brought as a breach of contract action, not through an article 78 proceeding. View "Matter of Dourdounas v City of New York" on Justia Law