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

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining a union's efforts to gain leverage over two commercial air carriers during negotiations over an amended collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to enter a status quo injunction in this major dispute, and did not abuse its discretion in enjoining this conduct.In light of the Railway Labor Act and the Norris- LaGuardia Act, the court held that Atlas presented compelling evidence in support of its assertion that this case involved a major dispute, because the existing CBA did not even arguably speak to whether the relevant conduct was permissible when done in furtherance of a particular goal. The court also held that Atlas demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, where Atlas showed that the status quo changed during a major dispute in violation of the RLA. The court held that the union encouraged strict compliance with the terms of the existing CBA in an effort to gain leverage in negotiations for a new or amended contract by encouraging pilots to block out on time, to make short notice sick calls, and to make filling open time more difficult. View "Atlas Air, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged EPA's promulgation of a final rule that treated material transferred from a waste generator to a third-party reclaimer as legitimately recycled, rather than "discarded" and subject to Subtitle C regulation, if several conditions were met (the Transfer-Based Exclusion).The DC Circuit denied the petition for review and held that the Transfer-Based Exclusion was not arbitrary or capricious. The court held that EPA did not act contrary to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) in adopting the Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous secondary materials are not necessarily "discarded" each time they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment. The court also held that EPA has provided a reasoned explanation for applying different standards to materials that are not yet part of the waste disposal problem RCRA addresses where they meet conditions EPA concluded were adequate for safe transfer and legitimate recycling. View "California Communities Against Toxics v. EPA" on Justia Law

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003's truncation requirement imposes on the merchant the duty not to print "more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date." The duty applies at the "point of the sale or transaction" and a violation occurs regardless whether a plaintiff ever becomes the victim of any crime. The interest protected by FACTA—avoiding an increased risk of identity theft—is concrete.The DC Circuit reversed the district court's grant of Centerplate's motion to dismiss plaintiff's action alleging that Centerplate violated FACTA. In this case, plaintiff made a credit card purchase at a Centerplate location and received a receipt that displayed her sixteen-digit credit card number and credit card expiration date. Although not every FACTA violation creates a concrete injury in fact, the court concluded that the alleged violation of plaintiff's right does so. The court held that plaintiff has pleaded enough facts to establish standing, because she was not able to use her credit card without incurring an increased risk of identity theft and, as a result, suffered a concrete injury in fact. View "Jeffries v. Volume Services America, Inc." on Justia Law

26 U.S.C. 7623(b)(4) does not contain a "clear statement" that timely filing is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the tax court's hearing the whistleblower's case. In this case, the Irwin presumption has not been rebutted and the filing period in section 7623(b)(4) is subject to equitable tolling.After the IRS denied appellant's application for a whistleblower award, he sought relief from the tax court. The tax court found that his petition was untimely and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Determining that it had jurisdiction, the DC Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings because, although the petition was untimely, the filing period was not jurisdictional and was subject to equitable tolling. View "Myers v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Architect with respect to plaintiff's discrimination claims, holding that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer that the 2014 and 2015 decision not to select plaintiff as Branch Chief was motivated by bias.The court affirmed the district court's grant of of summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claims, holding that plaintiff failed to introduce anything beyond his weak evidence of temporal proximity to show that the Architect's decisions were motivated by a desire to retaliate against him. Furthermore, even if it were to adopt plaintiff's interpretation of the relevant dates and find that he has established a prima facie case for retaliation using evidence of temporal proximity, there would still be insufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment. View "Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit denied the petition for review of OSHA's citation to Griffin for violating workplace safety standards designed to prevent electric shock. The court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that Griffin violated two safety standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; a Griffin supervisor's carelessness was foreseeable to other supervisors and he had both actual and constructive knowledge of the violations; and the ALJ reasonably rejected Griffin's unpreventable employee misconduct defense. Therefore, the Commission's order was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. View "Wayne J. Griffin Electric, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

EPIC filed suit seeking to enjoin the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. EPIC alleged that, before the Department's announcement of the citizenship question, its members were entitled to a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) by law.The DC Circuit remanded to the district court to dismiss the case, because EPIC lacked standing. The court held that EPIC's assertion of organizational standing was plainly foreclosed by precedent, and its assertion of associational standing also failed, because it has not identified a concrete injury suffered by one of its members. View "Electronic Privacy Information Center v. US Department of Commerce" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the the Acting Architect of the Capitol (AOC), in her official capacity, alleging that the selecting officials at the AOC denied him a promotion on the basis of his race and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The DC Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the AOC, holding that a jury reasonably could find the panelists did not select plaintiff for promotion because of his race or national origin. Because plaintiff argued his case as a single-motive claim and at oral argument forfeited any potential mixed-motive claim he could have made, he bears the burden of showing the alleged animus was a but-for cause of the decision not to promote him. Therefore, the court remanded for trial where plaintiff will bear the typical burden in this single-motive case to establish that he would have been selected for the promotion but for the alleged improper motive. View "Mayorga v. Merdon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's stay of proceedings in its federal complaint. The district court applied the Colorado River doctrine to grant the stay. The DC Circuit held that none of the Colorado River factors -- avoiding piecemeal litigation, which court first obtained jurisdiction over the case, and whether federal or state law controls -- alone or in combination, provide the "exceptional circumstances" required to suspend a federal court's "virtually unflagging obligation" to exercise its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court reversed the order granting the motion to stay the federal proceedings. View "Edge Investment, LLC v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the retroactive application of the 2000 parole guidelines, rather than the 1987 guidelines in effect at the time of his offense, in his parole hearings violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal in favor of defendants, holding that plaintiff's claim for damages failed because the parole officials named as defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that the parole commission did not violate plaintiff's due process rights where, even assuming the evidence supporting plaintiff's guilt of the first rape was insufficient to support the denial of parole, it was undisputed that the second rape—his offense of conviction—occurred while he was out on bond. The court held that this alone sufficed to suggest a risk of recidivism and to support a rational determination that his relatively low guidelines range inadequately accounted for the risk he posed. Finally, the court held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim that the arrest warrant was unsupported by probable cause. View "Johnson v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law