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

Plaintiff filed suit against DHS, the Department in which the Coast Guard is housed, under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., alleging that it had unlawfully denied her accommodations and terminated her in retaliation for requesting those accommodations. The district court granted summary judgment to the Coast Guard. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff was not a qualified individual able to perform her job duties even with reasonable accommodations and that she had produced no evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find that the Coast Guard retaliated against her. View "Doak v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, the Department of Homeland Security, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that her supervisor took adverse actions against her on account of her race or because she had previously filed a discrimination complaint against the Department. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department, concluding that the record in this case could not reasonably support a finding that the Department’s stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. View "Walker v. Johnson" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a labor dispute at six nursing homes operated by HealthBridge. The Board concluded that the company's conduct - taking down flyers about HealthBridge being "busted" for "violating labor law," and ordering its workers to remove stickers while working in patient care areas - violated section 8(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). The court rejected HealthBridge’s challenge to the rule that the Board applied in this case because the court lacked jurisdiction where HealthBridge failed to put this issue before the Board; the Board’s conclusion that HealthBridge failed to demonstrate special circumstances in support of its ban is supported by substantial evidence in the record; and the Board’s finding that HealthBridge violated the NLRA by removing the “busted” notices from Union bulletin boards also finds substantial support in the record. Accordingly, the court denied HealthBridge's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "HealthBridge Mgmt. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This appeal involves a labor dispute between an ambulance company and its employees. The court concluded that the unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint issued against the ambulance company was unauthorized because Lafe Solomon, the former Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, served in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA), 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, denied the cross-application for enforcement, and vacated the Board’s order. View "SW General, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a white Foreign Service Officer, filed suit alleging that the State Department's hiring plan aimed to increase racial diversity among the officers corps in the Foreign Service violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court agreed with the district court's reliance on two Supreme Court decisions, Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber, to grant summary judgment in favor of the State Department. Johnson and Weber both upheld employers' affirmative action plans against Title VII challenges. In this case, the Department has introduced evidence that the plan worked to target manifest imbalances in senior-level positions in the Foreign Service and that those imbalances resulted from past discrimination. The Department has also introduced evidence that the plan refrained from unnecessarily trammeling the rights of non-minority candidates. Further, plaintiff failed to prove that the Department's justification is pretextual and that the plan is invalid. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Shea v. Kerry" on Justia Law

The company appealed the Board's finding that the company had committed various unfair labor practices during the relocation of union employees from a dealership that was closing down to a larger dealership with non-union employees. The Board concluded that the company acted unlawfully when it withdrew recognition of the Union. The company argued that it had no choice but to withdraw recognition of the Union, on the ground that the relocated employees had been absorbed into a larger unit of non-union employees at the new dealership. The court rejected the company's arguments and concluded that it was required to bargain with the Union about the former employees' initial wages, benefits, schedules, and other terms and conditions. During such bargaining, the employer was required to consider “any proposals” put forth by the Union on these topics. The court upheld as reasonable the Board’s conclusion that the company unlawfully withdrew recognition of the Union when it did so immediately upon the relocation, prior to any effects bargaining. The court rejected the company's challenge to the composition of the Board itself. Accordingly, the court denied the company's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Dodge of Naperville v. NLRB" on Justia Law

American Coal appealed the MSHA's citation and fine for a "fire" on one of its coal stockpiles when safety inspectors observed patches of smoldering, smoking coal without visible flames. American Coal argued that the citation and fine should be vacated because a "fire," for purposes of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq., exists only when there are visible flames and that, even if a fire could exist without visible flames, there was insufficient proof to show a fire of any kind. The court rejected these arguments and denied American Coal's petition for review, concluding that the statutory term “fire” is ambiguous, the Secretary of Labor reasonably determined that the term does not require the presence of flames, and substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the smoldering patches on American Coal’s stockpile satisfied the Secretary’s interpretation of a “fire.” View "The American Coal Co. v. MSHR" on Justia Law

Appellees, medical records coders employed by appellants, filed suit against appellants for unlawfully failing to pay overtime pay. Appellees prevailed in a jury verdict and the district court denied appellants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, and to alter or amend the judgment. The court concluded that the jury fulfilled its function by considering conflicting evidence, resolving factual disputes, and returning a verdict. In this case, there is no reason for the court to upset that verdict or order a new trial. Because the court found no merit in appellants' arguments, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Radtke v. Caschetta" on Justia Law

Inova challenged the Board's ruling that it had unlawfully discharged, disciplined, or failed to promote certain nurses because they had engaged in concerted activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). The court held that the Board’s unfair labor practice determinations were reasonable, consistent with the law, and supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the suspension and termination of Donna Miller constituted an unfair labor practice; Inova's warning to Miller not to discuss the suspension constituted an unfair labor practice; Inova's discipline of Judy Giordano for her physical encounter with a human resources employee while protesting Miller's discharge constituted an unfair labor practice; and Inova's failure to promote Cathy Gamble constituted an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court denied Inova’s petition to review the Board’s order and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement. View "INOVA Health System v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Inova challenged the Board's ruling that it had unlawfully discharged, disciplined, or failed to promote certain nurses because they had engaged in concerted activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). The court held that the Board’s unfair labor practice determinations were reasonable, consistent with the law, and supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the suspension and termination of Donna Miller constituted an unfair labor practice; Inova's warning to Miller not to discuss the suspension constituted an unfair labor practice; Inova's discipline of Judy Giordano for her physical encounter with a human resources employee while protesting Miller's discharge constituted an unfair labor practice; and Inova's failure to promote Cathy Gamble constituted an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, the court denied Inova’s petition to review the Board’s order and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement. View "INOVA Health System v. NLRB" on Justia Law