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

The NLRB held that Du Pont engaged in an unfair labor practice by unilaterally implementing changes to its employee benefits program while it was between collective bargaining agreements with two local unions. Because the NLRB departed, without giving a reasoned justification, from its precedent allowing an employer unilaterally to change wages, hours, or working conditions when doing so was in keeping with the employer's past practice, the court granted Du Pont's petitions for review of the NLRB's order and denied the NLRB's cross-applications for enforcement. View "E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

After the Air Force announced it would conduct a reduction-in-force (RIF) at Luke Air Force Base, the Union made several proposals about how the RIF should be conducted and asked the Air Force to enter into negotiations. The Air Force claimed it had no duty to negotiate over three of the Union's proposals, prompting the Union to appeal the FLRA. The FLRA determined that the Air Force had an obligation to negotiate over two of the three disputed proposals and the Air Force subsequently petitioned for review of the unfavorable rulings. Because the Air Force's objections to the FLRA's rulings were either waived or unavailing, the petition for review was denied. View "U.S. Dept. of the Air Force v. FLRA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Library of Congress, brought this action against, inter alia, his former supervisor (defendant), alleging that his termination for publication of articles critical of high-level public officials violated the First and Fifth Amendments and entitled him to damages relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that a Bivens action was not available under the circumstances of the case and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Because the court concluded that the courts should not imply a new form of Bivens action on the facts of this case, the court reversed the order of the district court denying defendant's motion to dismiss. View "Davis v. Billington, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff applied for a position as Director of the Library of Congress and when he was passed over for the job, he claimed that the Library of Congress violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, defendant sought a new trial, arguing that the district court erred by instructing the jury that he had to prove that unlawful discrimination was the "sole reasons" for his non-selection. Although the court agreed that "sole reason" was not the correct standard, the jury instructions themselves corrected any error by defining "sole reasons" as "but-for" causation. The court recognized, however, that its recent Title VII employment discrimination cases have caused some confusion and the court took the opportunity to clarify the requirements the statute placed upon plaintiffs and the courts. View "Ponce v. Billington" on Justia Law

Trump Plaza sought review of an order of the Board, in which the Board concluded that Trump Plaza violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), by refusing to bargain with the Union. Trump Plaza conceded that it refused to bargain with the Union but claimed that the Board erred in certifying the Union. The court believed that the Trump Plaza dealers could not reasonably have read the leaflet or website at issue to suggest that the Board endorsed unionization. In regards to Trump Plaza's challenge to the mock card-check rally and its corresponding certification document, the court, deciding on the merits, held that the Board was plainly wrong to conclude that there was an "absence of evidence" of dissemination. Consequently, the court granted Trump Plaza's petition, vacated the Board's order, and remanded to the Board to assess the severity of the challenged conduct and to reassess the extent of the mock card-deck dissemination under its precedent. View "Trump Plaza Assoc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Union filed charges against the Company alleging that the Company had committed multiple unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3), (1), by suspending and discharging employees for engaging in protected "concerted activities." The Board found merit to virtually all of the charges and ordered the Company to undertake certain remedial actions. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement because substantial evidence and controlling precedent supported the Board's findings, and the Board's well-reasoned decision amply explained its judgment. The court amplified two points related to certain employees. Therefore, the court denied the Company's petition for review and granted the Board's application for enforcement. View "Stephens Media, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case arose out of an accident in which an 81-year-old truck driver for Bob Orton Trucking Co., was killed by a large pipe that fell off of his truck during a delivery to the Kennecott Utah Copper Mine. Petitioner was an independent contractor hired by the mine's owner, Kennecott to construct a tailings dam; it was responsible for receiving deliveries of materials such as the pipes in question. The MSHA cited petitioner for a violation of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. On review, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission upheld the citation, finding that petitioner, though not the principal operator of the mine, "supervised a process, the unloading of pipes," and that as a supervisor of that process it could be liable without fault for violations occurring in the process. Petitioner challenged that conclusion both as a matter of statutory interpretation and on the facts. The court held that, though the statutory structure invited considerable confusion, the Commission's conclusion was consistent with the Act and there was substantial evidence of its necessary findings. View "Ames Construction, Inc. v. MSHR, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when petitioner, a hotel and casino, contracted with a restaurant corporation, which operated restaurants on petitioner's property. The primary issue raised by petitioner in this case was whether a property owner could bar employees of an onsite contractor from distributing union-related handbills on the property. The court had previously determined that the governing statute and Supreme Court precedent granted the Board discretion over how to treat employees of onsite contractors in circumstances such as this one. Consequently, the Board had exercised its discretion on remand in the prior case and concluded that a property owner generally could not bar employees of an onsite contractor from distributing union-related handbills on the property. Therefore, the court was bound by its prior decision and rejected petitioner's attempt to reopen it. The court also rejected petitioner's remaining arguments and denied the petition for review, granting the Board's cross-application for enforcement of its order. View "New York-New York, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued United States Attorney General Eric Holder, alleging that the FBI refused to hire him as a special agent because of his Type I diabetes in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. A jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him compensatory damages. Subsequently, the district court denied both Holder's motion for judgment as a matter of law and plaintiff's request for equitable relief. Both parties appealed. The court held that a reasonable jury could reasonably conclude that plaintiff's diabetes and treatment regiment "substantially limited" his major life activity of eating and that plaintiff was therefore disabled within the meaning of the Act. Rejecting the remaining arguments, the court held that the district court did not err in denying Holder's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of equitable relief to plaintiff and rejected plaintiff's assertion that the district court erred in denying him front pay or instatement based on Holder's after-acquired evidence defense and in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to back pay based on the testimony of Holder's expert witness. View "Kapche v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

OSHA cited and fined petitioner for failing to properly record certain workplace injuries and for failing to properly maintain its injury log between January 2002 and April 2006. OSHA issued the citations in November 2006, which was, as petitioner pointed out, at least six months after the last unrecorded injury occurred. Because "[n]o citation may be issued...after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation, " 29 U.S.C. 658(c), the court agreed with petitioner that the citations were untimely and should be vacated. View "AKM LLC v. Secretary of Labor, et al." on Justia Law