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

After Consolidated disciplined several employees for alleged misconduct during a Union strike and eliminated a workplace position held by a union worker, the Board found that both Consolidated's disciplinary actions and its unilateral elimination of a bargaining-unit position violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (3) and (5). The court enforced the portions of the Board’s order determining that Consolidated’s suspensions of Michael Maxwell and Eric Williamson, as well as the company’s elimination of the bargaining-unit position, violated the Act. The court granted, however, Consolidated’s petition for review and denied cross-enforcement for that portion of the order addressing Consolidated’s discharge of Patricia Hudson, and remanded because the Board applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating Hudson’s strike misconduct. In this case, Hudson did not engage in misconduct punishable under the Act because the Board’s determination rests on a misapplication of the Clear Pine Mouldings standard and the Burnup & Sims burden of proof. View "Consolidated Commc'ns v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from an ongoing labor dispute between OHL and the Union. After OHL refused to bargain with the Union, the Board determined that OHL violated the National Labor Relations Act, 158(a)(3), (a)(1). OHL petitioned for review. The court concluded that the Board did not err in affirming and adopting the ALJ’s articulation of the controlling legal standard; substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that OHL employee Jennifer Smith never used the alleged racial slur at issue and that it was unreasonable for OHL to believe that she did; and substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that OHL’s proffered reasons for firing OHL employee Carolyn Jones were pretextual. The court concluded that OHL's remaining arguments lack merit. Accordingly, the court denied OHL's petitions for review and granted the Board's cross-applications for enforcement. View "Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Board promulgated the Health Care Rule in 1989, which established eight standardized bargaining units for acute-care hospitals. This case concerns the application of the Health Care Rule on a retrospective basis - in particular, to preexisting bargaining units that did not conform to the eight standardized units set forth in the Rule. The Rule prescribes that, if there is a petition to represent an additional unit in a hospital with preexisting nonconforming units, the Board may find the additional unit appropriate only if it comports, to the extent practicable, with one of the eight standardized units. The Board understands that aspect of the Rule to apply as follows: in any representation election that would create a new bargaining unit, the new unit must include all unrepresented employees who would be grouped together in one of the Rule’s standardized units. At issue in this case is whether the same understanding of the Rule governs an election to add unrepresented employees to a preexisting bargaining unit, as opposed to an election to create a new bargaining unit. In other words, when a union seeks to add unrepresented employees to a preexisting nonconforming unit, must the unit embrace all (and not just some) of the unrepresented employees who would fit within the same standardized unit in the Rule? The Board answered in the negative and reasoned that the addition of employees to an already existing unit - the creation of a new unit - necessarily keeps the number of bargaining units constant. Petitioner, an acute-care facility, argues that the Board’s distinction between preexisting units and new units under the Rule is arbitrary and incompatible with the Board’s own precedent. The court rejected petitioner's challenge to the Board’s interpretation and application of its own regulation. Therefore, the court upheld the Board’s understanding that the Rule is inapplicable in the context of elections to add employees to a preexisting unit. The court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Rush Univ. Med. Ctr. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Care One petitioned for review of the Board's determination that Care One committed a series of unfair labor practices in an effort to prevent the certification of a union at its nursing home and rehabilitation facility in Morristown, New Jersey. The Board held that Care One had interfered with employees’ protected activity and discriminated against union-eligible employees by instituting a system-wide, discretionary benefits increase shortly before a scheduled representation election and denying the increase to the union-eligible employees. The Board also held that the company unlawfully interfered with its employees’ right to organize by distributing to employees eligible to vote in the upcoming election a threatening leaflet associating unionization with job loss; presenting a slideshow depicting employees, without their consent, as if they supported the Company’s antiunion campaign; and issuing a post-election memorandum reiterating the company’s workplace violence policy, which the Board concluded could reasonably be read in context to threaten reprisal for protected union activity. The court concluded that the Board's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and denied Care One's petition for review, affirming the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Care One at Madison Avenue v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after the District of Columbia Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board terminated his employment, alleging in part that his termination violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. At issue is the district court’s most recent dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, as well as its denial of his motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that plaintiff has shown that his due process rights were violated and that this violation caused his alleged damages. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the District and, in part, its denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court remanded to the district court to address whether the District can be held liable under section 1983 for this violation and, if it can, for a determination of the amount of damages to which defendant is entitled. View "Thompson v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

The Board determined that Enterprise violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by telling employees it was terminating short-term disability benefits on account of their union membership, encouraging an employee to circulate a petition to decertify the Union as its employees’ bargaining representative, unilaterally terminating employees’ short-term disability benefits, interfering with a union representative’s contractual right of access to Enterprise’s facility, unlawfully decertifying the Union as its employees’ bargaining representative based on a petition tainted by unfair labor practices, and thereafter refusing to bargain with the Union or collect or remit union dues. Enterprise petitioned for review. The court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, holding that substantial record evidence supports each of the Board’s findings and conclusions. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Enterprise’s additional claim that the Board’s remedy was unlawfully punitive because Enterprise failed to raise the argument before the Board. View "Enterprise Leasing Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against HUD, alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to HUD. Under Circuit precedent the action complained of must be “materially adverse” to support a discrimination claim. In this case, the court affirmed the district court's finding that the denial of plaintiff's requests for lateral transfers on the basis of race and/or national origin was not cognizable under Title VII because it did not constitute an adverse employment action. View "Ortiz-Diaz v. HUD" on Justia Law

Quicken forbids its mortgage bankers to use or disclose a broad range of personnel information without Quicken’s prior written consent or to criticize publicly the company and its management. The Board determined that such rules violate the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., because they unreasonably burden the employees’ ability to discuss legitimate employment matters, to protest employer practices, and to organize. The court denied Quicken’s petition for review and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement, concluding that there was nothing arbitrary or capricious about that decision and no abuse of discretion in the Board’s hearing process. In this case, the Board appropriately determined that employees would reasonably construe the sweeping prohibitions in Quicken’s Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Rules as trenching upon their rights to discuss and object to employment terms and conditions, and to coordinate efforts and organize to promote employee interests. View "Quicken Loans, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

In Kloeckner v. Solis, the Supreme Court held that when the Board dismisses a mixed-case appeal without reaching the merits on a procedural ground - there, untimeliness - judicial review resides in district court (as when the Board reaches the merits), not the Federal Circuit. At issue in this appeal is whether Kloeckner effectively overruled this court's decision in Powell v. Dep’t of Def. The court held that it does not and that the court's precedent requires transferring the case to the Federal Court. The court found that Powell is materially indistinguishable from this case. Like Powell, petitioner resolved a disciplinary issue by agreeing to a significant employment action that could be appealed to the Board if involuntary. Like Powell, petitioner then claimed that his agreement had been involuntary due to discrimination. As in Powell, the Board disagreed, finding that the agreement was voluntary and thus dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. And like Powell, petitioner contends that review of the Board’s dismissal lies in district court. The court rejected that argument in Powell. Accordingly, the court transferred the petition for review to the Federal Circuit. View "Perry v. MSPB" on Justia Law

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 501(b), sets out fiduciary duties that officers and other agents of unions owe the union that employs them. At issue is whether section 501 provides a union with a federal cause of action against its agent for breach of a fiduciary duty owed to the union. Weaver v. United Mine Workers of America holds, at least, that where union members have properly sued under section 501, the union itself may take control of the suit and displace the union members. Because the Union’s section 501 claim is properly before the district court, supplemental jurisdiction exists for the Union’s state law claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order dismissing the Union's claims under section 501 and state law for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "International Union v. Faye" on Justia Law