Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2012, Bill Simmon, an employee of Vermont Community Access Media, Inc. (VCAM), invited Ciara Kilburn and her minor sister Brona to VCAM’s premises to record a commercial. Simmon secretly recorded the sisters changing clothes using VCAM’s equipment and shared the videos online, where they were viewed millions of times. In 2020, the Kilburns filed a lawsuit against Simmon for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligence per se, and against VCAM for vicarious liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, dismissed claims against Vermont State Colleges and did not instruct the jury on vicarious liability or NIED. The jury found Simmon liable for invasion of privacy and IIED, and VCAM liable for negligent supervision. Each plaintiff was awarded $1.75 million in compensatory damages against both Simmon and VCAM, and $2 million in punitive damages against Simmon. The court denied VCAM’s motions to exclude evidence, for a new trial, and for remittitur, and also denied plaintiffs’ request to hold VCAM jointly and severally liable for Simmon’s damages.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that emotional-distress damages were available to plaintiffs for VCAM’s negligent supervision because the claim was based on intentional torts (invasion of privacy and IIED) for which such damages are recoverable. The court found no error in the jury’s award of damages, concluding that the evidence supported the verdict and that the damages were not excessive. The court also ruled that plaintiffs waived their claim for joint and several liability by not objecting to the jury instructions or verdict form before deliberations. View "Kilburn v. Simmon" on Justia Law

The case involves a representative action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) filed by Mamadou Bah against Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Boston, LLC, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. Bah alleged that the defendants failed to pay overtime wages to assistant branch managers before November 27, 2016. Bah sought conditional certification of a class of similarly situated employees and requested the issuance of notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The defendants moved to stay the issuance of notice pending a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The district court later dismissed Bah's claims against Enterprise Holdings, Inc. for failure to state a claim, leading to further amendments to the complaint.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts initially dismissed Bah's claims against Enterprise Holdings, Inc. without prejudice, leading to the filing of an amended complaint. The district court eventually denied a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, but by then, the statute of limitations had expired for potential opt-in plaintiffs. The district court conditionally certified a class and authorized notice, but the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed as untimely. Bah requested equitable tolling of the statute of limitations due to the delay in issuing notice, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling. The court found that the delay in issuing notice was attributable to Bah's own pleading errors and that the opt-in plaintiffs did not demonstrate the requisite diligence. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny equitable tolling and dismiss the claims of the opt-in plaintiffs as untimely. View "Kwoka v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Boston, LLC" on Justia Law

Brian J. Murphy, a former employee of Caterpillar Inc., alleged that he was constructively discharged due to age discrimination and retaliation for previous legal actions against the company. Murphy, who began working for Caterpillar in 1979, had a long history of positive performance reviews and promotions. In 2000, he was placed on a performance action plan and subsequently fired after complaining about age discrimination. He sued Caterpillar, won a retaliation claim, and was reinstated in 2005. In 2018, after successfully leading a significant project, Murphy was placed on another performance action plan that he argued was designed for him to fail.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Caterpillar on all claims. The court found that Murphy did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of age discrimination and retaliation. Murphy appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Murphy presented enough evidence to support a reasonable inference of pretext and unlawful intent regarding his age discrimination claim. The court noted that the performance action plan was flawed, as it included a deadline that had already passed and was signed off as failed before Murphy had a chance to comply. This, along with Murphy's consistent positive performance reviews, suggested that the plan was a pretext for discrimination. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on Murphy's retaliation claim, citing the long gap between his previous lawsuit and the adverse action, and the lack of evidence of retaliatory animus.The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision on the age discrimination claim, allowing it to proceed to trial, but affirmed the decision on the retaliation claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Murphy v Caterpillar Inc." on Justia Law

A fifty-nine-year-old General Manager (GM) at a Chili’s restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee, was terminated and replaced by a thirty-three-year-old with no managerial experience. The employer, Brinker International, Inc., claimed the termination was due to the GM creating a toxic "culture" and not "living the Chili’s way," despite the restaurant being one of the top performers in the market. The GM alleged that the termination was due to age discrimination, as he was the oldest manager in the region and believed Brinker was systematically replacing older employees with younger ones.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment in favor of Brinker, accepting the company's explanation of "culture" as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination. The court found that the GM could not sufficiently rebut this explanation to show it was pretext for age discrimination. The court also granted in part and denied in part the GM's motion for sanctions due to Brinker’s spoliation of evidence, awarding fees and costs but not excluding the TMR Report, which documented the termination decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the TMR Report could not be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 and was therefore inadmissible. The court vacated the district court’s order on sanctions and instructed it to consider whether additional sanctions beyond fees and costs were appropriate. The appellate court also reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Brinker, finding that the GM had provided sufficient evidence to rebut Brinker’s explanation and create a genuine issue of material fact regarding age discrimination. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the GM’s motion for summary judgment. View "Kean v. Brinker Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Ryan West, a former employee of Village Practice Management Company, LLC ("Village"), sought a declaratory judgment from the Court of Chancery of Delaware. West argued that Village could not declare a forfeiture of his vested Class B Units after he joined a competitor post-employment, as the Agreement did not limit post-employment competitive activities. Village contended that West forfeited his vested Class B Units by joining a competitor, invoking the Management Incentive Plan's ("Plan") forfeiture provisions.The Court of Chancery denied Village's motion to stay proceedings and compel West to submit his claims to Village's Compensation Committee. The court then granted West's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Agreement only restricted "detrimental activity" during employment. Consequently, Village could not enforce a forfeiture of West's vested Class B Units for activities occurring after his resignation. The court also awarded West his attorneys' fees.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery's decision. The Supreme Court found that the term "Participant" in the Agreement could reasonably be interpreted to include former employees, making the Agreement ambiguous. Therefore, the grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of West was improper. The Supreme Court also reversed the award of attorneys' fees to West, as he was no longer the prevailing party. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Chancery's denial of Village's request for a stay, distinguishing the case from others that required disputes to be resolved by a committee first. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Village Practice Management Company, LLC v. West" on Justia Law

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