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

Petitioner sought review of a decision of the Board affirming the findings of an ALJ that petitioner committed eight unfair labor practices (ULPs) in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5). The Board filed a cross-application for enforcement. The court granted the petition in part and set aside the Board's findings that petitioner committed ULPs when it prematurely declared impasse and unilaterally implemented a wage increase on September 1, 2005. The court denied the petition and granted enforcement as to the remaining ULP findings because petitioner had forfeited any objection thereto. View "Laurel Bay Health & Rehab. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellant, an African American man employed by the IRS, alleged that the IRS discriminated against him on the basis of race and gender when it awarded a temporary detail and then a permanent promotion to a white female employee. Appellant also claimed that the IRS retaliated against him when he pursued the matter with the Equal Employment Opportunity office. The district court granted summary judgment to the government on all claims. The court agreed that appellant failed to exhaust his claim regarding the temporary detail and so affirmed that portion of the district court's judgment. But because the court concluded a reasonable jury could find that the government's proffered nondiscriminatory reason for denying appellant the permanent promotion was pretextual and that discrimination was the real reason, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the discriminatory promotion claim and remanded to allow that claim to proceed to trial. And because the court concluded that appellant established a prima facie case of retaliation, the court remanded that claim for further proceedings. View "Hamilton v. Geithner" on Justia Law

In the mid-1990's, the Navy began providing employees with bottled water after an EPA report indicated that water fountains in some Navy buildings in Newport contained components manufactured with lead. Beginning in 2005, the Navy replaced the problematic water fountains, tested the tap water, and determined it safe to drink. The Navy then stopped providing bottled water; it did not negotiate with employee unions before removing the bottled water. The unions objected to the removal of the bottled water. Funds appropriated for agency operations could be used for "necessary expenses" but not for employees' "personal expenses." As the Comptroller General has long determined, when safe and drinkable tap water was available in the workplace, bottled water constituted a personal expense for which appropriated funds could not be expended. Under federal collective bargaining law, moreover, an agency had not duty or authority to bargain over or grant benefits that were "inconsistent with any Federal law." Therefore, if safe and drinkable tap water was available at the Newport facilities, the Navy had no authority or duty to bargain before removing the bottled water. View "US Dept. of the Navy v. FLRA" on Justia Law

This case arose when Southern Power terminated its service agreement with Georgia Power, represented by Local 84, and Alabama Power, represented by Local 801-1, taking over four electricity generating plants' operations. Local 84 and Local 801-1 requested recognition, contending that Southern Power qualified as a successor employer to Georgia Power and Alabama Power. After a hearing, an ALJ found that Southern Power violated sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., ordering it to recognize and bargain with the unions. The ALJ also found that the three-plant bargaining unit represented by Local 84 was inappropriate. On March 20, 2009, the Board, acting with only two sitting members, issued an order affirming the ALJ's findings but found, however, that the Georgia Power three-plant bargaining unit was proper given the unit's bargaining history. Southern Power petitioned for review and the court remanded in light of New Process Steel, which required at least three members to exercise the Board's authority. On November 30, 2010, a three-member panel of the Board affirmed the ALJ's decision and adopted the recommended Order. Southern Power subsequently petitioned for review of the Board's November 30 Order. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider two of Southern Power's arguments, another was time-barred, and two others failed on the merits. Accordingly, the court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Southern Power Co. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioners petitioned for review of a decision and order of the Board, and the Board cross-applied for enforcement. The Board found, among other things, that petitioners violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by implementing new terms and conditions of employment before reaching a lawful impasse in collective bargaining negotiations. The court held that because substantial evidence supported the Board's findings, the petition for review was denied and the Board's cross-application for enforcement was granted. View "Wayneview Care Center, et al. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case arose when the Board found petitioner had acted unlawfully by unilaterally reducing the hours of its full-time respiratory department employees. The Board ordered petitioner to rescind the hours reduction, bargain with the labor union representing the affected employees, and make whole any employee for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered (2004 Order). An ALJ subsequently determined that petitioner owed 13 current and former employees roughly $105,000 in backpay to compensate them for the unlawful hour reduction and the Board adopted the ALJ's findings without elaboration, ordering petitioner to pay (2011 Order). Petitioner appealed the 2011 Order and the Board cross-applied for enforcement. The court granted in part the Board's cross-application for enforcement with respect to all issues except the matter relating to interim earnings. The Board did not err in applying a backpay remedy to those employees hired into the bargaining unit after petitioner unlawfully reduced the employees' hours; and the Board correctly held the Union's failure to communicate with petitioner did not toll the employer's liability, because petitioner had not rescinded the unlawful unilateral reduction in hours when it sought to negotiate with the Union. However, the Board did not adequately explain its failure to consider interim earnings when calculating the backpay award. Therefore, the court vacated the Board's backpay computation and remanded so the Board could amplify its position on interim earnings. View "Deming Hospital Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case involved the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 152, which provided that "the majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class." For 75 years, the Board had counted non-voters as voting against union representation, thereby requiring a majority of eligible voters to affirmatively vote for representation before a union could be certified. In 2010, the Board issued a new rule that elections would be decided by a majority of votes cast, and those not voting would be understood as acquiescing to the outcome of the election. Appellants challenged the new rule, claiming that it violated the statute and was arbitrary and capricious. The district court rejected these arguments and granted summary judgment to the Board. Upon review, the court agreed with the district court and affirmed the judgment. View "Air Transport Assoc. of America v. Nat'l Mediation Bd." on Justia Law

Appellant, an African-American female attorney in the Office of the Chief Counsel of the PBGC, filed suit in district court against the PBGC, claiming employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. Appellant appealed two issues: first, claims of race and gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation, arising out of four discrete episodes; second, a claim of retaliatory hostile work environment arising not only out of the four discrete episodes but also out of various other events as to which she raised claims that were time-barred. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims of race and gender discrimination and of unlawful retaliation where the court did not believe that the PBGC's failure to remedy the various critiques and epithets to which appellant's fellow employees subjected her would have persuaded a reasonable employee to refrain from making or supporting charges of discrimination. The court held, however, that the district court erred to the extent that it categorically excluded her time-barred complaints in considering the hostile work environment claim, thus failing to employ the Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan analysis, including a determination of which acts exhibit the relationship necessary to be considered part of the same actionable hostile work environment claim. Accordingly, the court remanded for a determination of which, if any acts, should have been included under Morgan. View "Baird v. Gotbaum" on Justia Law

Petitioner, which operated the Los Angeles Airport Hilton Hotel and Towers, petitioned for review of the NLRB's order finding petitioner in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) & (3). At issue was whether Hilton disciplined its employees for engaging in activities protected by section 7 of the Act. The court held that the NLRB's grievance procedure finding was not supported by substantial evidence where the record demonstrated that Hilton managers addressed group grievances relating to hotel equipment, employee uniforms, working conditions, and other matters on numerous occasions. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review with respect to the NLRB's assessment of the May 11 protest and remanded the issue for reconsideration. The court held, however, that the NLRB met its burden under section 8(a)(3) where ample evidence supported the NLRB's finding that anti-union animus played a role in Hilton's decision to issue warnings. Therefore, the court enforced the portion of the NLRB's order finding that Hilton violated section 8(a)(1) & (3) by issuing the warnings at issue. Finally, the NLRB was entitled to summary enforcement of additional, effectively uncontested rulings. View "Fortuna Enterprises, L.P. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Arc Bridges petitioned for review of a NLRB order finding it in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1)&(3). At issue was whether Arc Bridges established annual wage increases as a term of employment and then unlawfully refused to implement a wage increase after its employees became unionized. The district court concluded that Arc Bridges' budget review each June and across-the-board wage increase each July amounted to an established condition of employment. Consequently, Arc Bridges' refusal to maintain that condition in 2007 was inherently destructive of the employees' rights. The court held that the NLRB's decision was arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review, denied the cross-petition for enforcement, and set aside the NLRB's order. The court also remanded the case for further proceedings in light of the NLRB's decision to reserve judgment on the Wright Line theory. View "Arc Bridges, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law