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

Plaintiff, an African-American woman, sued the District and the Chief of Police, alleging race and sex discrimination. When plaintiff opted to retire instead of accepting a demotion, the Chief hired a white man to serve in her position at one rank higher than the rank the Chief had offered plaintiff. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that plaintiff produced sufficient evidence of race and sex discrimination to get to a jury and that the district court failed to state its reasons for keeping certain records designated "confidential" sealed. View "Primas v. District of Columbia, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued his employer, the USPS, for racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's order refusing to award him any compensation for delayed payment of attorney's fees after his successful suit. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the district court had discretion to compensate for delay, but it applied the wrong legal standard in exercising its discretion. On remand, the district court must determine, under the correct legal standards, whether compensation for delay was appropriate and, if so, by what means. View "West v. Potter" on Justia Law

FINRA filed a complaint against petitioner, charging that he violated FINRA rules by submitting false expense reports for reimbursement of nonexistent business travel and for a fraudulently purchased cellular telephone. In his petition for review, petitioner argued that the SEC abused its discretion in upholding a lifetime bar based on his violation of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Conduct Rule 2110. The court remanded to the SEC for further consideration, agreeing with petitioner that the SEC abused its discretion in failing to adequately address all of the potentially mitigating factors that the agency should have considered when it determined the appropriate sanction. View "Saad v. SEC" on Justia Law

Millard petitioned for review of the Commission's affirmance of citations issued to Millard for committing violations of emergency response, training, record-keeping, and other requirements after more than 30,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia escaped from one of Millard's refrigerated storage facilities. The court concluded that Millard's challenges to the two process safety management violations, Millard's contention that OSHA was estopped from asserting that the company violated agency regulations, and Millard's ten remaining challenges either lacked merit or merited neither reversal nor further discussion. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Millard Refrigerated Services v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

Cumberland petitioned for review of the Commission's determination that Cumberland's failure to maintain adequate emergency lifelines in its mine's escapeways was a significant and substantial violation of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 814(d)(1). The court denied the petition for review, concluding that the Commission applied the correct significant and substantial standard and that substantial evidence supported its findings. View "Cumberland Coal Resources, LP v. MSHR, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the district and others for violation of, inter alia, the District of Columbia Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA), D.C. Code 1-615.52-.54. The district court granted judgment in favor of defendants on all claims and plaintiff subsequently appealed. The court affirmed the judgment because the relevant statute provided no cause of action against individuals and an amendment to the statute passed in 2009 so providing was not retroactive. Further, plaintiff had not established causation between his allegedly protected activity and his discharge. View "Payne v. District of Columbia Government, et al." on Justia Law

This case involved the District's laws against "double-dipping": the simultaneous drawing of both a pension and a salary by a retired employee who has been rehired by the District. Plaintiffs, retired employees of the Metropolitan Police Department, filed suit against the District, claiming numerous violations of federal and D.C. law arising out of a salary offset. Only plaintiffs' federal claims were at issue in this appeal. Three of the plaintiffs asserted that they did not receive the minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and all of them claimed that: the salary offset violated the Fifth Amendment, the manner in which the District administered the offset violated the Equal Protection Clause, and the District violated the First Amendment by retaliating against them for filing their suit. The court held that plaintiffs' federal challenges were meritless except in one respect. In slashing three of the plaintiffs' salaries, the District overstepped the boundaries of the FLSA. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on the constitutional claims, but reversed and remanded as to the claim under the FLSA. Because the district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' D.C. law claims was premised on the dismissal of all federal claims from this case, the court vacated that part of the district court's order dismissing the D.C. law claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cannon, et al. v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

This case arose from a protracted labor dispute between Tenneco and the Union. The NLRB's General Counsel sought to prove that Tenneco had committed multiple violations of Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158. The court granted Tenneco's petition for review with respect to the charge relating to Tenneco's withdrawal of recognition. On the record before the court, there was no substantial evidence that Tenneco's unfair labor practices significantly contributed to the employees' petition for decertification. However, with respect to the remaining disputed unfair labor practice charges, the court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. Although Tenneco had raised vigorous challenges to the Board's holdings, the court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determinations that Tenneco's conduct violated Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. View "Tenneco Automotive, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellants - AFGE, several AFGE locals that represent Air Reserve Technicians (ARTs), and ART Mark Winstead - challenged three Air Force instructions requiring ARTs to wear military uniforms while performing civilian duties. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal because the exclusive remedial scheme of the CSRA precluded AFGE's claims. View "American Federation of Government Employees, et al v. Secretary of the Air Force" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that her employer denied her a promotion and a transfer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment for the government. The court concluded that plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence that, when taken together, could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that the Secretary's proffered reason for cancelling the Lead Developmental Disabilities Specialist position plaintiff was seeking was pretext for racial discrimination. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government on the Executive Assistance detail claim because plaintiff failed to make a showing that the government's proffered explanation was pretext for racial discrimination. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Evans v. Sebelius" on Justia Law