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

Plaintiff, who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis (MS), filed suit against her former employer, TEFCU, for wrongful termination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), D.C. CODE 2-1401.01 et seq.; and Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1140. Plaintiff alleged that the cost of treating her MS was causing the monthly healthcare insurance premium to rise and that TEFCU dismissed her to reduce its health care costs. TEFCU claimed that plaintiff's termination was due to her poor performance as an employee. The district court granted TEFCU's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could infer that TEFCU dismissed plaintiff because of the costs associated with insuring her. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for sanctions where plaintiff provides no citation to authority or to the record demonstrating that the district court's denial was premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law, an erroneous factual finding, or that it was otherwise unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Giles v. Transit Emp. Fed. Credit Union" on Justia Law

The NLRB determined that the Venetian committed an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 157, when it requested that police officers at the scene of a union demonstration issue criminal citations to the demonstrators and block them from the walkway because they were allegedly trespassing. The Venetian argues that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunizes it from liability under the Act. Under that doctrine, conduct that constitutes a direct petition to government, but would otherwise violate the Act, is shielded from liability by the First Amendment. The court granted the Venetian's petition for review because the act of summoning the police to enforce state trespass law is a direct petition to government subject to protection under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine; denied the Board's cross-application for enforcement; and vacated the Board's order. Because the Board did not address whether the Venetian’s petition was a sham, the court remanded so that the Board may consider that question in the first instance. View "Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The NLRB ruled that AT&T committed an unfair labor practice by barring its employees from wearing union shirts that say "Inmate" and "Prisoner" while interacting with customers or working in public. The court concluded that, while Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 157, protects the right of employees to wear union apparel at work, there is a special circumstances exception to that general rule. The court held that a company may lawfully prohibit its employees from displaying messages on the job that the company reasonably believes may harm its relationship with its customers or its public image. In this case, it was reasonable for AT&T to believe that the “Inmate/Prisoner” shirts may harm AT&T’s relationship with its customers or its public image. Thus, AT&T lawfully prohibited its employees from wearing the shirt. The court granted AT&T's petition for review, vacated the Board's decision and order with respect to these shirts, and denied the cross-application for enforcement. View "Southern New England Telephone v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Board issued a complaint against the Hospital charging it with violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. At issue was whether an employer has a duty to arbitrate grievances with the old union under an expired collective bargaining agreement after a new union has been certified. The court concluded that the interplay of section 8(a)(5) and section 9(a) of the NLRA is a question of statutory interpretation - one that the Board does not unambiguously resolve where the Board does not identify where the duty to resolve unfinished business with the old union ends and the duty to bargain exclusively with the new union begins. Because the Board failed to address the relevant statutory provisions, the court granted the Hospital’s petition for review, denied the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Children's Hosp. and Research v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, investigators with the Department, filed suit against the District under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act, D.C. Code 1-615.51 et seq., alleging that they were unlawfully reassigned to a less desirable position in retaliation for disclosures they allegedly made accusing their superiors of gross mismanagement and racial discrimination in the workplace. The unrebutted explanation the District has offered is that the Department reassigned plaintiffs because District prosecutors refused to work with either of them and not because they had filed Equal Employment Opportunity complaints with the Department alleging racial discrimination. Because plaintiffs failed to rebut this explanation, the court held that they have failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of disputed fact sufficient to survive summary judgment on their claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the District. View "Bowyer v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against three officials of the AO, in their official capacities, claiming that their refusal to consider her job application violated her right to travel protected by the Constitution of the United States. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court held that the AO’s decision to limit its applicant pool to employees of the federal judiciary and individuals who lived in the Washington metropolitan area did not violate plaintiff’s right to travel, whether that right is considered under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV because it does not constrain the powers of the federal government; the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because the geographical limitation does not implicate the component of plaintiff's right to travel; or the essential structure of the Constitution. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s request for discovery before entering summary judgment for defendants. View "Pollack v. Duff" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a lawyer for the PBGC, filed suit claiming that, in retaliation for her Title VII activities, the PBGC made her work environment a hostile one. Both of plaintiff's complaints have been consolidated on appeal. The court concluded that the incidents the PBGC failed to remediate would not themselves constitute a retaliatory hostile work environment, and that several instances of rude emails, name-calling, lost tempers and unprofessional behavior do not amount to a retaliatory hostile work environment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of her two complaints. View "Baird v. Gotbaum" on Justia Law

Prairie State challenges the Commission’s decision to sustain the Secretary’s citations against it for operating without approved, mine-specific plans for roof support and ventilation at Prairie State’s underground coal mine at Lively Grove in southern Illinois. Principally at issue was which standard the Commission should use when it reviews the Secretary’s citation of an operator for failure to follow an approved, mine-specific plan. The court assumed, without deciding, that Chevron governs the court's consideration of that question, as Prairie State failed to contest the Secretary’s assertion that it does. The court held that the Secretary’s judgments regarding the suitability of mine-specific safety plans are entitled to deference under the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and reject the further claims of error. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Prairie State Generating Com. v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

Fortuna petitioned for review of a NLRB order finding that Fortuna violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), by suspending seventy-seven employees for participating in an on-site work stoppage. Applying the ten Quietflex Manufacturing Co. factors, the Board concluded that the work stoppage was protected and Fortuna's suspension of participating employees violated the Act. The court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement, concluding that the Board issued a reasonable order that was supported by substantial evidence. View "Fortuna Enterprises v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit stemming from the workers' compensation benefits owed to class members under the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq., for injuries suffered while working for United States government contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Members of the class suffered lost limbs in massive explosions, suffered traumatic brain injuries from “concussive blasts, mortars, rockets, and bombs,” and developed post-traumatic stress disorder after witnessing “gruesome scenes of carnage.” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ class-wide tort claims in light of Hall v. C&P Telephone Company as well their Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-68, claims because plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under the statute and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950, claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; however, this dismissal does not preclude any individual plaintiff from bringing independent claims outside of the Base Act’s statutory scheme; with respect to the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., claims brought by three individual plaintiffs, the court remanded to the district court to reconsider and explain its denial of leave to amend the complaint. View "Brink v. Continental Ins. Co." on Justia Law