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

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

Plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging that his employer fired him because he was male. At issue was whether 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) barred plaintiff's suit because he brought it too late. On EEOC Form 5, plaintiff swore that his statements were true and listed his address as “3032 Rodman Street, NW, Apt. 35, Washington, DC 20008.” At the time he was not living at that address. A month earlier he had moved to South Carolina. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that when a complainant, such as plaintiff in this instance, fails to receive a right-to-sue notice because he gave the EEOC an incorrect address or because he neglected to inform the EEOC when he moved, the complainant is at fault and he is not entitled to equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Maggio v. Wisconsin Ave. Psychiatric Ctr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging that his employer fired him because he was male. At issue was whether 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) barred plaintiff's suit because he brought it too late. On EEOC Form 5, plaintiff swore that his statements were true and listed his address as “3032 Rodman Street, NW, Apt. 35, Washington, DC 20008.” At the time he was not living at that address. A month earlier he had moved to South Carolina. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that when a complainant, such as plaintiff in this instance, fails to receive a right-to-sue notice because he gave the EEOC an incorrect address or because he neglected to inform the EEOC when he moved, the complainant is at fault and he is not entitled to equitable tolling. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Maggio v. Wisconsin Ave. Psychiatric Ctr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Department, alleging that her new supervisor retaliated against her for earlier discrimination complaints. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department. The supervisor justified plaintiff's low performance ratings on the ground that plaintiff, a managerial employee, failed adequately to supervise satellite offices and external contractors. Further, the supervisor attested that plaintiff was never excluded from meetings and that plaintiff could have attended meetings, but never did. The court concluded that the proffered facts could not, if presented a trial, support a jury verdict that retaliation was the supervisor's real motive for the actions of which plaintiff complains. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Allen v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Department, alleging that her new supervisor retaliated against her for earlier discrimination complaints. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department. The supervisor justified plaintiff's low performance ratings on the ground that plaintiff, a managerial employee, failed adequately to supervise satellite offices and external contractors. Further, the supervisor attested that plaintiff was never excluded from meetings and that plaintiff could have attended meetings, but never did. The court concluded that the proffered facts could not, if presented a trial, support a jury verdict that retaliation was the supervisor's real motive for the actions of which plaintiff complains. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Allen v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Bruce Packing petitioned for review of the Board's decision that Bruce Packing committed unfair labor practices in an effort to beat back a union-organizing drive at one of its plants. The court agreed with the Board that substantial evidence supports its conclusion that the termination of a worker violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3), where the evidence demonstrated that Bruce Packing would not have terminated the worker absent his union activity. However, the court disagreed with the Board’s decision to allow the late amendment of the General Counsel’s complaint, which left Bruce Packing without notice of a new charge that it lacked the opportunity to fairly contest. Accordingly, the Board’s order will be enforced with respect to all issues, except its conclusion that Bruce Packing illegally promised benefits to employees who stopped supporting the union. View "Bruce Packing Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

After a federal court of appeals entered judgment enforcing petitioner’s right to reinstatement and backpay with interest for his unlawful termination, the Board entered into a settlement agreement with petitioner's former employer under which petitioner's backpay would be paid by monthly installments over eleven years with no interest accruing. The Board also ruled that reinstatement to a position with reduced pay, benefits, and job security satisfied the court’s judgment because it paralleled what current employees received. The court concluded that the Board's decision departs without any reasoned explanation from longstanding Board precedent constraining the Board’s ability to alter the terms of a judicially enforced Order, and it relies on a finding of substantial equivalence between petitioner’s old job and his reinstatement offer that is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part, vacated the Board's ruling, and remanded. View "Dupuy v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellant filed suit against the Department, alleging a claim under the District of Columbia Whistleblower Protection Act, D.C. Code 1–615.51 et seq., after she was discharged as a result of the Department's disciplinary proceedings stemming from a major fire of a high-rise building. The district court grouped appellant’s numerous communications with her supervisors into broad categories, and then granted summary judgment to the Department on the ground that most of those categories were not statutorily protected types of communications, and for the one group that was protected, the Department had articulated a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its actions. The court concluded, however, that Whistleblower protection is not disbursed or denied en masse. When appellant's complaints are considered individually rather than categorically, a reasonable jury could conclude that one or more of them qualifies as a protected complaint under the Whistleblower Act. Appellant also came forward with sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find a prima facie case of retaliation as to those complaints. The Department failed to meet its burden of establishing that any reasonable juror would have to find by clear and convincing evidence that it had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its actions. Accordingly, the court reversed as to the Whistleblower claims. The court affirmed, with one exception, the grant of summary judgment as to appellant's other claims. View "Coleman v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law