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

Petitioner petitioned for review of an order of the NLRB, holding that petitioner violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3), when it threatened and disciplined a certified nursing assistant and outspoken union supporter. Petitioner admitted that the nursing assistant's union activity was a motivating factor for her discipline; although other employees engaged in conduct similar to the nursing assistant's, petitioner neither investigated nor punished any one of them; and the nursing assistant was disciplined without an inquiry into her actions, as company policy required. Petitioner premised its discipline, at least in part, on the nursing assistant's expired disciplinary history, an impermissible consideration under company rules. Therefore, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's Wright Line determination. In light of these conclusions, the court need not consider the NLRB's alternative ground for its section 8(a)(3) ruling. View "Manor Care of Easton, PA., LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellant, a former official of the District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General (OIG), claimed that he was fired in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights by refusing to sign an affidavit his employer drafted for him in response to a former subordinate's employment discrimination claim and instead, appellant rewrote the affidavit in a manner critical of the OIG's decision to terminate the subordinate. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the OIG on the First Amendment retaliation claim and appellant petitioned for rehearing. The court held that because appellant spoke as a government employee, the district court rightly granted summary judgment in favor of appellant's employer on this retaliation claim. Therefore, the petition for rehearing was denied. View "Bowie v. Maddox" on Justia Law

This case arose when the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), division of the Department of Homeland Security, changed local work assignments for its inspectors without first negotiating with their union. CBP petitioned for review of the Federal Labor Relations Authority's (Authority) affirmance of an arbitrator's conclusion that this was an unfair labor practice. The court denied the petition for review and rejected CBP's argument that it had no duty to bargain over the disputed changes in work assignment policies because the changes were "covered by" the Revised National Inspectional Assignment Policy (RNIAP) and that, in the alternative, that CBP had no duty to bargain over the changes it made pursuant to the RNIAP because they did not alter inspectors' "conditions" of employment. Accordingly, the court deferred to the Authority's reasonable determination that the RNIAP was not a collective bargaining agreement subject to the "covered by" doctrine and the Authority's reasonable conclusion that the cases CBP cited did not govern the dispute here. Therefore, the court held that the Authority adequately explained its conclusion.

Bally's Park Place, Inc. (Bally's) petitioned for review of a decision and order of the NLRB which found that Bally's committed unfair labor practices in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1),(3), when it discharged an employee because of his support for the United Auto Workers. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's view of the disputed events and that the court would not disturb the NLRB's conclusion that the employee's termination was unlawful. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement.

Spectrum Health -- Kent Community Campus (Spectrum) withdrew recognition from its employees' union after receiving a petition indicating that the union no longer had majority support. The NLRB found this action unlawful because it occurred within the first three years of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, during which time a union enjoyed a conclusive presumption of majority support. The court held that the NLRB properly interpreted the term of the collective bargaining agreement and that Spectrum waived its objections to the bargaining order by failing to raise them in a timely manner before the NLRB. Accordingly, the court denied Spectrum's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement.

When the Kiewit Power Constructors Company warned its electricians that their morning and afternoon breaks were too long, two of them responded that things would "get ugly" if they were disciplined, and one said that the supervisor had "better bring [his] boxing gloves." Each was fired. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reinstated both workers, finding that in context their statements were not physical threats, but were merely figures of speech made in the course of a protected labor dispute. The court held that because the NLRB's finding were supported by substantial evidence, the court denied Kiewit's petition for review and granted the cross-application for enforcement.

After injuring her back in a car accident, plaintiff filed for and received long-term disability benefits from the insurance plan sponsored by her employer. Plaintiff brought suit pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 42 U.S. C. 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., against her employer and the administrators and underwriters of her employer-sponsored long-term benefit disability insurance policy after the claims administrator of that plan determined that she no longer qualified for benefits. At issue was whether the district court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no violation of law. The court held that because defendants acted reasonably, the court concluded that defendants' termination of plaintiff's benefits complied with federal law. The court found none of plaintiff's procedural claims persuasive and held that the district court did not err when it held that defendants did not violate plaintiff's right to a full and fair review of her adverse eligibility determination. The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that the district court violated local rule 7(h) where plaintiff failed to make this argument before the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiffs, retired U.S. Airways pilots, each received pensions from the U.S. Airways pension plan (the plan) and each opted to receive his pension in a single lump sum rather than as an annuity. Plaintiffs subsequently sued U.S. Airways claiming that the plan owed them interest for its 45-day delay. The court reversed the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs' actuarial equivalence claim where the amount of plaintiffs' lump sum benefit was equal to the actuarial present value of the annuity payments plaintiffs would have received under the plan's default payment option. Even so, U.S. Airway's 45-day delay in paying plaintiffs was unrelated to the calculation of plaintiffs' benefits and therefore, not reasonable under existing IRS regulations. The court remanded to the district court to calculate the appropriate amounts due to plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment of the district court that plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney's fees.

This case stemmed from a collective bargaining agreement executed in 1998 by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the American Federation of Government Employees, Council of Prison Locals No. 33. The Bureau petitioned for a review of a decision of the Federal Labor Relations Authority holding that the Bureau had a duty to bargain over its implementation of a "mission critical" standard for staffing federal correctional institutions. The court held that because the Authority unreasonably concluded the mission critical standard was not "covered by" the collective bargaining agreement between the Bureau and its employees' union, the court granted the petition and vacated the Authority's decision.

Appellant sued her former employer alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on appellant's interference claim and entered a judgment as a matter of law on her retaliation claim. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the interference claim where appellant's allegations "focus[ed] on precisely the sorts of de minimis, intangible, and unmeasurable aspects of a job that the regulations specifically exclude[d]" pursuant to Montgomery v. Maryland. The court also agreed with the district court that no reasonable jury, relying on the evidence presented at trial, could conclude that the 2005 realignment proximately caused appellant's termination in 2008. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on the retaliation claim.