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

CC1 petitioned for review of the Board's determination that it unlawfully fired several employees who had engaged in work stoppages. The DC Circuit held that there was substantial evidence that one of the discharged employees played no part in a work stoppage. However, the court remanded for further explanation of the Board's conclusion that the striking employees were unlawfully terminated for engaging in protected activity. The court denied the petition in all other respects and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "CC1 Limited Partnership v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Advanced Life petitioned for review of the Board's order determining that the company was liable for two violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act based on the owner's statements immediately before and four months after the election that tied the temporary halt in wage increases to the need to negotiate with the Union; two violations of section 8(a)(3) for discriminatorily ceasing pay raises and Christmas bonuses following the election; and one violation of Section 8(a)(5) for unilaterally changing the employees' wages by halting the Christmas gifts.The DC Circuit held that the Board's finding that the owner's two statements -- both of which were made proximate to the Union election and in his capacity as Advanced Life's owner and operator -- violated Section 8(a)(1) was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court denied the petition as to that claim and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. In regard to the remaining claims, the court granted Advanced Life's petition for review where no substantial evidence supported the finding that the company had a discriminatory motive in denying pay increases; and substantial evidence did not support treating Christmas bonuses as company wages or bonuses. View "Advanced Life Systems Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

In previous decisions, the DC Circuit held that, notwithstanding the lapse of a Board quorum, Regional Directors retain authority to direct elections administered under a so-called stipulated election agreement—an agreement under which the employer and union agree to have a Regional Director conduct the election, but subject to the possibility of Board review if a party opts to seek it. This case involved a consent election agreement, rather than a stipulated election agreement. At issue was whether a Regional Director, if the Board itself had lost power to take any action, could exercise Board-delegated authority to conduct a representation election and certify the results. After remand, the court held that the Board's understanding of the statute was reasonable where the Board saw no salient difference between consent election agreements and stipulated election agreements. The court rejected Barstow's various challenges to the Board's finding of unfair labor practices and to the remedies imposed by the Board. Accordingly, the court denied Barstow's petition for review. View "Hospital of Barstow, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a single-leg amputee, filed suit against his employer, ARE, alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff was awarded damages for ARE's failure to accommodate his disability by refusing his request to teach on a lower floor. At issue in this appeal was whether ARE failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff's disability by refusing his request for a classroom aide, and whether ARE's failures to accommodate his disability created a hostile work environment.The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff had not proffered sufficient undisputed facts for his hostile-work environment claim to survive summary judgment. However, the court reversed the district court's judgment as to the remaining failure-to-accommodate claim, because plaintiff's allegations presented a triable issue of fact as to whether ARE violated the ADA when it refused his request for a classroom aide. View "Hill v. Associates for Renewal in Education, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former government contractor with security clearance, filed suit raising numerous constitutional and security claims after his security clearance was revoked. The district court dismissed 23 counts, partially dismissed Count 21 and granted summary judgment to the government on the remainder of that count, and ordered plaintiff to file a more definite statement about the other six counts (Counts 23-27 and 29). The district court later granted summary judgment for the government as to those six counts.As to the frivolous constitutional claims, they were barred by Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). As to the Privacy Act claims, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims because they failed on the merits. As to the Due Process Claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), they were properly dismissed because the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. As to challenges to the DOHA proceeding, the court assumed without deciding that plaintiff had a cognizable liberty interest but that his claim was not viable. As to claims of illegal search and claims under the Store Communications Act, the district court correctly dismissed these counts for failure to state a claim. Finally, as to claims of unlawful interrogation, the district court properly concluded that plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction of the defendants. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Palmieri v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against SELEX, alleging that its denial of benefits violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and breached its contractual duty to provide severance pay to eligible employees. The DC Circuit vacated the district court's grant of judgment in favor of SELEX with regard to the deferred-compensation claim where the company acted unreasonably in determining that he was terminated for cause and was thus ineligible to receive deferred-compensation. In this case, plaintiff did not refuse to perform the duties of his employment with the company when he declined to assume different duties of a different position in a different location and plaintiff's refusal to accept a transfer to a new position could not reasonably be considered cause for terminating him. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of SELEX with regard to the severance pay claim, finding that plaintiff's arguments lacked merit. View "Peck v. Selex Systems Integration, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from plaintiff's claims that his union violated the transparency and fiduciary requirements of their members by failing to comply with document requests and by permitting its officers to enrich themselves beyond the salaries permitted by the Union constitution. The DC Circuit held that the district court correctly determined on remand that the evidence supported defendants' assertion that they simply preferred to pay taxes on their expense allowances rather than document their expenditures. The court noted that their choice may not be a model of administrative efficiency, but it did not violate either the Union constitution or the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). In regard to the section 201 of the LMRDA claim involving plaintiff's requests for Union records that he alleged have been wrongfully withheld, plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence of wrongdoing by defendants. View "Noble v. Dunn" on Justia Law

The Board held in three separate orders that Chino violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board's prior petitions to enforce the first two orders were granted by the DC Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. At issue in this appeal was whether, in the midst of Chino's repeated challenges to the Board's orders, and with the Union on the verge of securing its first contract, Chino could lawfully withdraw recognition from the Union—or whether, as the Board found, its refusal to bargain constituted another unfair labor practice. The court held that federal law did not permit Chino to withdraw recognition from the Union when it did, that the Board's remedies (except one) should be enforced, and that the would-be intervenor suffered neither prejudice nor a deprivation of his due process rights when the Board declined to expand this case to encompass his claim. Accordingly, the court denied Chino's petition for review as to all aspects of the Board's order except for its award of litigation costs and expenses. View "Veritas Health Services, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit granted the employer's petitions for review of the Board's order holding it had committed an unfair labor practice by failing to bargain with the union before terminating five employees. The Board held that the employer was liable for a substantially longer period of back pay after the parties bargained over the effects of an impasse and the Board held the impasse was unlawful. The court held that the order was not supported by substantial evidence because there was no substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the parties did not reach a lawful impasse on April 11. Therefore, the court vacated the Supplemental Order and remanded to the Board to assess more carefully whether the employer's offer to the union exceeded the Transmarine amount. On remand, the Board may find that the employer reached a lawful impasse on April 11 and therefore owed each employee only two weeks of back pay. View "Pennsylvania State Corrections Association v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit granted Verizon's petition for review of the Board's decision affirming the ALJ's finding that Verizon’s discharge of an employee for lying during an investigation was a pretext to rid the company of a prominent union supporter. The court held that there was insufficient probative evidence to support a finding of anti-union animus. In this case, it was not unlawful for Verizon to consider the collateral consequences of its personnel decisions, and there was no evidence that the employee's union activity played a role in her termination. Furthermore, the court rejected the ALJ and Board's alternative finding that even if the employee did lie, it was within the context of an inquiry into protected activity, and therefore she was immune. View "Cellco Partnership v. NLRB" on Justia Law