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

The D.C. Circuit granted Fred Meyer's petition for review of the Board's holding that Fred Meyer committed various unfair labor practices in its interaction with the Union. The court noted that counsel for Fred Meyer deprived the court of a straightforward disposition by failing to present to the Board arguments regarding the Union representatives' failure to check in. Nevertheless, the inconsistencies in the Board's opinion required the court to remand this matter to the Board to consider whether the union representatives lost the protection of the National Labor Relations Act. In this case, the Board's opinion was more disingenuous than dispositive; it evidenced a complete failure to reasonably reflect upon the information contained in the record and grapple with contrary evidence—disregarding entirely the need for reasoned decisionmaking. View "Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Commission declined to review an ALJ's decision regarding plaintiff's complaint of unlawful interference with his rights as a miners' representative under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(1). The DC Circuit denied the petition for review of the Commission's decision. Under the totality of the circumstances, upon applying the Secretary's test and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court held that the ALJ properly applied the summary decision standard in concluding that the conduct of a miner for Armstrong Coal did not rise to the level of Section 105(c) interference. Consequently, the court had no occasion to reach the miner's contention that the Mine Act does not provide for a private right of action against non-management miners. View "Wilson v. MSHR" on Justia Law

Casinos petitioned for review of the Board's order concluding that the casinos violated section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), when they refused to bargain with the Union, which represents several non-guard employees of the casinos. The DC Circuit granted the casinos' petitions, denied the Board's cross-applications for enforcement, and vacated the Board's decisions and orders. The court held that, under section 9(b)(3) of the Act, surveillance techs are guards who can be represented only by an all-guard union. The court explained that the techs' day-to-day duties—sensitive ones peculiar to the modern gaming industry—call for them to enforce against coworkers and others the rules that protect the casinos' property and guests. View "Bellagio, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against DHS and DOD under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, after a DHS agent sent an Inspector General's report regarding plaintiff to DOD. The DC Circuit held that DHS's disclosure of the report to DOD was permissible under the Act because the disclosure constituted a "routine use" of the record where the purpose of DHS's disclosure of the Inspector General's report to DOD was compatible with the purpose for which the report was collected, and DHS's disclosure of the report met the requirements of DHS routine use notice. In this case, DHS’s purpose in collecting the report was to determine whether plaintiff had committed wrongdoing that could affect her suitability for federal employment, and the disclosure met the requirements of Routine Use G and Routine Use H. View "Ames v. DHS" on Justia Law

Arc Bridge petitioned for review of the Board's holding that it violated sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by failing to give a wage increase to represented employees, with whom it was then bargaining, when it increased the wages of its nonunion employees. The DC Circuit granted Arc Bridge's petition for review and vacated the Board's decision and order, holding that substantial evidence did not support the Board's inference that antiunion animus motivated Arc Bridge's decision not to give a unilateral wage increase to the represented employees in October 2007. The court denied the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "ARC Bridges, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

After her move to Treasury was blocked and her contract work with Fannie Mae was terminated, plaintiff filed suit alleging claims under District of Columbia law and, in the alternative, under Bivens. The DC Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Bivens claim because the conservatorship over Fannie Mae did not create the type of permanent government control that is required under Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374; affirmed summary judgment on her wrongful termination claim and rejected her request to recognize a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine based on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; affirmed summary judgment on her tortious interference with prospective contractual relations claim because she failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to any valid business expectancy; affirmed summary judgment on the conspiracy claim because she failed to establish a cognizable underlying tort; and rejected her two discovery challenges. View "Herron v. Fannie Mae" on Justia Law

After plaintiff's employer failed to respond to his suit for wage underpayment, plaintiff obtained a default judgment for himself and two other employees. The district court subsequently vacated its default judgment as to the two employees because they failed to opt-in to the lawsuit, concluding that it had lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the judgment. The DC Circuit held that the opt-in omission did not oust the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held, nonetheless, that the judgment may be void for a different reason. In this case, two defendants claimed they were never served with the complaint and thus the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing on remand. View "Montes v. Janitorial Partners, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit contending that USAID and NOAA violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., by terminating his employment because of his national origin. He also contended that NOAA violated 18 U.S.C. 1001, which criminalizes false statements to the government, by lying about why he was terminated. The DC Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claim under section 1001 because the statute did not create a private right of action. The court determined that plaintiff's remaining contentions lacked merit and affirmed, with one modification of the order of dismissal. View "Lee v. USAID" on Justia Law

The company petitioned for review of the Board's order to reinstate an employee with make-whole relief, and to reimburse the employee for search-for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of whether those expenses exceeded her interim earnings. The DC Circuit held that the Board's determination that it unlawfully interrogated the employee must be vacated because this charge was not added to the General Counsel's complaint until after the commencement of the hearing before the ALJ. Therefore, the company had no reasonable notice of the interrogation charge or a fair opportunity to defend itself. The court found no merit in the company's remaining claims. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement as to all matters except the finding that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act when it allegedly interrogated the employee about complaints she raised with the union. The court granted the company's petition for review as to that charge, but denied the petition for review as to the remaining matters. View "King Soopers, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims against DHS for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Although plaintiff initiated this administrative exhaustion process for his claims of race discrimination and retaliation when his supervisors denied him leave in 2002, he did not file a formal complaint with DHS's EEO office until 2010. The court explained that such a lengthy and unexplained delay in filing his formal complaint with DHS did not evidence the diligent pursuit of Title VII rights that was required for equitable tolling. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the complaint. View "Niskey v. Kelly" on Justia Law