Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Hood River Distillers, Inc. operates a liquor distillery in Oregon, employing approximately twenty-five unionized employees represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 670. In January 2019, the Union and Hood River began negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. The negotiations focused on health insurance, wages, and other benefits. Despite several bargaining sessions, the parties did not reach an agreement, and Hood River unilaterally implemented its final offer in May 2020, leading to a strike by the Union.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Hood River violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by unilaterally changing employment terms without reaching an impasse in negotiations. Hood River argued that the Union engaged in unjustified delay tactics, justifying its unilateral actions. The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled against Hood River, and the NLRB affirmed the ALJ's decision, finding that the Union's actions did not constitute unjustified delay tactics and that no impasse had been reached.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's conclusion that Hood River acted unlawfully by unilaterally implementing its March 30 offer. The court found that the Union's insistence on in-person mediation during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic was not unreasonable and did not constitute unjustified delay tactics. The court also noted that Hood River failed to preserve its challenge to the remedy awarded by the NLRB.The court denied Hood River's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement, affirming the NLRB's decision that Hood River violated the NLRA by unilaterally changing employment terms without reaching an impasse and without justification based on the Union's conduct. View "Hood River Distillers, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (JLL) provides building management services. In 2023, the International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39, AFL-CIO (Union) sought certification as the bargaining representative for JLL's Maintenance II and III technicians at an Amazon facility in Napa, California. The Union and JLL agreed to a stipulated election, which was approved by the NLRB's Regional Director. The election was held on May 17, 2023, and all four eligible employees voted in favor of Union representation. JLL refused to bargain with the Union and filed an objection to the election, claiming misconduct by the Board Agent overseeing the election.The Regional Director dismissed JLL's objections, finding them meritless, and certified the election. JLL appealed to the NLRB, which denied the appeal. JLL continued to refuse to bargain, leading the Board's General Counsel to file a complaint. In March 2024, the NLRB issued a summary judgment against JLL, finding that the company violated sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union. The Board ordered JLL to bargain with the Union.JLL then filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reiterating its claim that the election should be set aside. The Board cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the Regional Director's decision to certify the election without a hearing was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The court held that JLL's objections did not raise substantial and material factual issues that would justify setting aside the election. Consequently, the court denied JLL's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order requiring JLL to recognize and bargain with the Union. View "Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc v. NLRB" on Justia Law

VTCU Corp., a manufacturer of electrical transformers, contested the results of a mail ballot representation election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, won the election by 21 votes. VTCU alleged misconduct by the NLRB’s Region 27 Office and the Union, claiming insufficient voting time, failure to provide ballots to eligible voters, and counting of void ballots. VTCU also accused Union agents of threatening and intimidating employees. VTCU requested the election be overturned or an evidentiary hearing be held.The Regional Director found no merit in VTCU’s claims, overruled the objections without a hearing, and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative. The Director determined many of VTCU’s objections were untimely, unsupported, or refuted by an administrative investigation. The Director concluded the Regional Office’s conduct was consistent with the Board’s Casehandling Manual, the parties’ Stipulated Election Agreement, and Board precedent.After the Board denied VTCU’s request for review, VTCU refused to bargain with the Union. The Board’s General Counsel issued a complaint alleging VTCU’s refusal to bargain violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board concluded VTCU committed unfair labor practices and ordered it to recognize and bargain with the Union. VTCU petitioned for review, arguing the Board erred in rejecting its objections and denying requests for an extension of time and a post-election hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found no merit in VTCU’s claims. The court held the Board’s decision was consistent with applicable law and supported by established precedent. The court also noted it lacked jurisdiction to consider several of VTCU’s claims due to failure to raise them with the Board. Consequently, the court denied VTCU’s petition for review and granted the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order. View "VTCU Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Acumen Capital Partners, LLC, a commercial property management company, discharged engineer Gregory Zapata, allegedly due to his failure to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Zapata had been involved in union activities, including signing union authorization cards and discussing unionization with colleagues. Acumen's chief engineer, Salvatore Coppola, who was aware of Zapata's union activities, had informed Zapata that the company's owner, Jeffrey Rosenblum, did not want a union in the building.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Acumen discharged Zapata because of his protected union activities, violating Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) credited the testimonies of Zapata and another engineer, Gabriel Garcia, while discrediting Rosenblum's testimony. The ALJ concluded that Acumen's stated reason for discharging Zapata—non-compliance with the vaccination mandate—was pretextual, as the company had not enforced the mandate consistently and had not excluded other unvaccinated employees from the workplace.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB's findings that Acumen had knowledge of Zapata's union activities and that anti-union animus was a motivating factor in his discharge. The court noted the timing of the discharge, the pretextual nature of Acumen's explanation, and the disproportionate response to Zapata's unvaccinated status. The court denied Acumen's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement of its decision and order, which included reinstating Zapata with backpay. View "Acumen Capital Partners, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Jason Lee, an American citizen of Chinese ancestry, was employed by the FBI and held a Top Secret security clearance. After failing three polygraph examinations, the FBI revoked his security clearance and subsequently terminated his employment, as his job required such clearance. Lee contended that the revocation was based on race, national origin, and protected speech, and he brought claims under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and Title VII.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Lee's claims. It held that his Title VII claims were not timely exhausted, that Title VII preempted his Fifth Amendment claims against the Department of Justice (DOJ), and that Lee lacked a cause of action to press constitutional claims for damages against individual DOJ officials. The court also denied Lee's motion for leave to amend his complaint to include additional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), barred judicial review of Lee's statutory and constitutional claims. The court reasoned that the decision to grant or revoke a security clearance is a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment committed by law to the appropriate agency of the Executive Branch. The court also found that Lee's constitutional claims were nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine, as they involved national security matters committed to the political branches and lacked judicially manageable standards for resolution. View "Lee v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2017, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (the Union) initiated proceedings against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) in federal district court. The Union contested Amtrak’s refusal to use Union-represented signalmen in a newly acquired building. The district court sent the case to mandatory arbitration under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The National Railroad Adjustment Board (the Board) dismissed the claim, stating it lacked jurisdiction because the Union was seeking relief based on hypothetical facts.The district court vacated the Board’s award and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the Board did not consider or interpret the parties’ agreement. Amtrak appealed, arguing that the award should be upheld under the highly deferential judicial standard of review because it was at least arguably based on rail industry common law and Rule 56 of the collective bargaining agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court found that the Board’s award should be vacated because it did not decide the dispute based on the parties’ contract. Instead, the Board relied on legal principles governing federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction, which are outside the scope of the Board’s authority. The court emphasized that the Board must interpret the contract and cannot base its decisions on external legal principles unrelated to the contract. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the National Railroad Adjustment Board for proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation" on Justia Law

A member of the United Mine Workers of America arbitrated a dispute against Consol Energy, Inc. and won. The Union then sued to confirm the arbitration award, while Consol and its subsidiaries counterclaimed to vacate the award. The Union argued that the subsidiaries could not unilaterally reduce health benefits promised to miners for life, even if they no longer mined coal. Consol, which served as the health-plan administrator, had sent a letter indicating potential changes to benefits after the agreement expired, prompting the arbitration.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the Union’s claim for lack of standing, reasoning that the Union was not injured as Consol had not actually modified the benefits. The court also declined to vacate the arbitration award on the merits of the Subsidiaries’ counterclaim. Both parties appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Union’s claim did not fall under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, which only authorizes suits for actual violations of contracts, not anticipated future violations. Consequently, the Union’s claim was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Regarding the Subsidiaries’ counterclaim, the court determined that the Subsidiaries lacked standing as they were not named in the arbitration award and had not shown a concrete and imminent injury. The court vacated the district court’s orders on the Subsidiaries’ counterclaim and remanded it with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing.Thus, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Union’s claim and vacated and remanded the Subsidiaries’ counterclaim for dismissal due to lack of standing. View "International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Consol Energy Inc." on Justia Law

Ghulam Ali, an economist at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), suffers from severe allergies. For years, the EPA accommodated his condition by providing a suitable workspace. However, in 2011, the EPA placed a heavily perfumed colleague next to Ali, exacerbating his allergies. Ali requested a private office or a small conference room as an accommodation. Instead, the EPA offered him 100% telework, which Ali rejected, citing concerns about his home setup and the need for in-person collaboration. Ali then filed a lawsuit under the Rehabilitation Act, claiming the EPA failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the EPA. The court concluded that Ali caused a breakdown in the interactive process by rejecting the telework offer without providing sufficient explanation. The court held that Ali bore sole responsibility for the failure to settle on an appropriate accommodation.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Ali had provided all requested information and had proposed alternative accommodations, which the EPA either ignored or rejected. The court determined that whether the EPA's offer of 100% telework was a reasonable accommodation involved disputed material facts that should be resolved by a jury. The court emphasized that the reasonableness of an accommodation is often a fact-intensive question and that Ali's concerns about telework, including the need for in-person interaction and the unsuitability of his home for permanent work, were valid issues for a jury to consider. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Ali v. Regan" on Justia Law

Henry Searcy, Jr. sought certification as an agent under the NFLPA’s 2012 Regulations Governing Contract Advisors but failed the required exam twice. After an arbitrator sided with the NFLPA, Searcy sued the NFLPA, its Executive Director, Prometric LLC, and Prometric’s Vice President and General Counsel. He alleged breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and sought vacatur of the arbitration award under the FAA.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims against Prometric Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and against the NFLPA Defendants for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against Prometric Defendants and instructed the District Court to reconsider its dismissal of claims against the NFLPA Defendants, specifically examining whether Section 301 of the LMRA preempted Searcy’s state law claims.Upon further review, the District Court concluded it had jurisdiction and dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Searcy appealed again. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the District Court erred in finding subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against the NFLPA Defendants. The court determined that Section 301 of the LMRA does not completely preempt Searcy’s state law claims, as these claims do not require interpretation of the NFL-NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal on different grounds and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). View "Searcy v. Smith" on Justia Law

Jo Spence, a licensed attorney, was terminated from her position at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after eleven years. She claimed her termination was retaliatory, following her filing of internal discrimination complaints and whistleblower disclosures. Spence alleged discrimination based on race, sex, and age, and also claimed the VA engaged in illegal preferential hiring practices. She filed a complaint in the district court after the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) upheld her termination, citing her poor performance.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed most of Spence’s claims for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment on her remaining claim. The court found that Spence, despite being pro se, was not entitled to the leniency typically afforded to pro se litigants due to her legal training and experience. The court dismissed her initial lengthy complaints and allowed her to amend them multiple times, but ultimately dismissed her claims with prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s page limits and pleading requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the liberal pleading standard for pro se litigants does not apply to licensed attorneys. It found that Spence failed to plead sufficient facts to support her claims of retaliation and discrimination, and that her termination was supported by substantial evidence of poor performance. The court also upheld the district court’s dismissal of her claims with prejudice, noting Spence’s repeated failure to comply with court rules and orders. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Spence v. DVA" on Justia Law