Case Summaries
[09/07]
Payne v. Salazar
In an action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, dismissal of the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is affirmed in part where the district court properly held that plaintiff failed to exhaust one of her claims. However, the order is reversed in part where an employee's right to trial de novo -- whether her employer is the federal government or a private company -- means that she is entitled to a plenary trial of whatever claims she brings to court, and it does not mean that she must sue on claims she has no interest in pursuing.
[09/07]
Kahn v. Dep't of Justice
In a DEA agent's suit under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), the Merit Systems Protection Board's final decision that plaintiff did not make protected disclosures under the WPA is affirmed where: 1) the administrative judge did not err in finding that plaintiff's communications with an agent were not protected disclosures because they were made as part of normal duties through normal channels; 2) plaintiff's report was not a disclosure because he did not reveal something that was hidden and not known to the DEA; and 3) because plaintiff's communications were not protected under the WPA, the question of whether the government could have shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have transferred plaintiff on the absence of his communications need not be addressed.
[09/07]
Parker v. NutriSystem, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his employer for past overtime payments in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer is affirmed where: 1) the Department of Labor's factually distinguishable opinion letters and broad general guidance are not sufficiently thorough or consistent to warrant deference in this case; 2) the fact that defendant's plan is not calculated strictly as a percentage of sale price does not disqualify it from being a commission under section 7(i); and 3) when the flat-rate payments made to an employee based on that employee's sales are proportionally related to the charges passed on to the consumer, the payments can be considered a bona fide commission rate for the purposes of section 7(i).
[09/07]
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Kronos Inc.
In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) suit seeking enforcement of a third-party administrative subpoena it issued against defendant pertaining to the EEOC's investigation into a charge of discrimination against a grocery store, district court's order narrowing the scope of the subpoena and directing the parties to negotiate a confidentiality order is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment is reversed insofar as it limited the scope of the EEOC's subpoena in terms of geography, time and job description; 2) to the extent that the district court's order limits the EEOC's access to validation efforts conducted solely on behalf of the store, documents relating to potential adverse impact on disabled individuals to those relating specifically and only to the store, and user's manuals and instructions for the assessment were actually provided to the store, the order is reversed; 3) district court's judgment is affirmed to the extent that it declines to enforce the portion of the EEOC's subpoena requesting information related to potential discrimination based on race; and 4) district court's confidentiality order is vacated and remanded to permit the district court to conduct a good cause balancing test.
[09/07]
Alday v. Raytheon Co.
In an action alleging that defendant breached collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with plaintiffs and violated the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the language of the CBAs made clear that defendant's agreement to pay retiree medical insurance premiums continued beyond the term of the CBAs, even where its agreement to pay non-retired employee premiums did not; 2) defendant's leeway to amend its benefit plans did not allow it to alter the terms of the CBAs under which it agreed to provide company-paid health insurance to retirees; and 3) plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts supporting their claim for punitive and extra-contractual damages.
[09/03]
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc.
In a sexual harassment case in which a male employee was the victim of a female co-worker, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether: 1) plaintiff was subjected to "verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature"; 2) such conduct was unwelcome; 3) the pervasiveness and the inadequate response by the employer established a jury question of whether a co-worker's overtures led to an abusive environment; 4) defendant's actions were not enough to establish an affirmative defense.
[09/03]
Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employer claiming discrimination because of his race and retaliation under Title VII, jury's verdict for plaintiff on a retaliation claim is reversed and remanded as the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to find an actual or constructive discharge.
[09/03]
Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has offered insufficient evidence to establish the key elements of her retaliation and discrimination claims; and 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
[09/03]
Songer v. Dillon Resources, Inc.
In an action brought by truck drivers who operate commercial trucks against defendants for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice is affirmed where the Motor Carrier Act exemption applies to bar plaintiffs' claims as: 1) the MCA applies to defendant-staff leasing agency because is a joint employer with the two companies, both of whom are subject to the exemption, and 2) plaintiffs engaged in activities that directly affect operational safety of motor vehicles in transport of property in interstate commerce.
[09/03]
Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), to recover damages for back injuries that he allegedly suffered while working as a machinist at defendant's locomotive repair shop, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to establish causation, negligence or foreseeability; and 2) the district court properly excluded plaintiff's medical expert's causation opinion for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2).
[09/02]
Weber v.Universities Research Ass'n, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has waived her discrimination and retaliation arguments under the direct method of proof; and 2) plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, because even if she does not have to show that she was meeting defendant's legitimate business expectations, defendant is still entitled to summary judgment as she has failed to show that there were similarly situated men who were treated more favorably than she was.
[09/02]
Branham v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) against her former employer for being terminated from her job as a receptionist, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to defendant based on the submission of negative medical certification indicating that plaintiff could return to work; 2) plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact about her entitlement to FMLA leave, and defendant was not permitted to deny her leave based on the certification requirement when it never properly requested certification or informed her of the consequences of failing to provide the same, as required by Department of Labor regulations.
[09/01]
Polycarpe v. E&S Landscaping Serv., Inc.
In consolidated Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) actions claiming that during plaintiffs' employment they worked more than forty hours per week and defendant employers failed to pay them either a federally mandated minimum wage, federally mandated overtime pay, or both, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) if a district court, ruling for a defendant, applied the "coming to rest" doctrine -- for instance, by looking at where defendant bought an item instead of where an item was produced, the court must vacate the judgment for the defendant if there was a question about where the "goods" or "materials" were produced or where they moved; and 2) for the purposes of the FLSA's handling clause, an item will count as "materials" if it accords with the definition of "materials" -- tools or other articles necessary for doing or making something -- in the context of its use and if the employer has employees "handling, selling, or otherwise working on" the item for the employer's commercial (not just any) purposes.
[09/01]
Smith v. Selma Cmty. Hosp.
In plaintiff's successful suit against a hospital to have his hospital privileges reinstated, trial court's denial of his motion for attorney fees is reversed and remanded where: 1) when the conditions contained in section 809.9 are shown, the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees; 2) the statutory phrase "frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith," set forth separate grounds for an award of attorney fees; 3) the terms "frivolous," "unreasonable" and "without foundation" are objective standards that might overlap; 4) the term "bad faith" is a subjective standard concerned with a defendant's motives for defending or litigating a lawsuit; and 5) because a defendant's subjective state of mind is usually proven by circumstantial evidence, a defendant's prelitigaton conduct and postlitigation conduct are relevant evidence from which inferences can be drawn regarding its motives in defending or litigating a lawsuit.
[09/01]
Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.
Back to Main
