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

The DC Circuit denied StaffCo's petition for review of the Board's order finding that it violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally discontinuing contributions to a Union pension plan upon the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. The court rejected StaffCo's defense that the Union expressly waived its right to bargain as to pension contributions, the Union impliedly waived its right to bargain by failing to diligently request bargaining; and it was impossible for StaffCo to continue making contributions because the pension plan would not have accepted the payments. Rather, the court held that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence where StaffCo did not deny that by failing to make pension contributions, it failed to meet its status quo obligations. View "StaffCo of Brooklyn, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Company petitioned for partial review of the Board's finding that it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. At issue was whether the Board's finding that a dancer was discharged for engaging in protected concerted activity was supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. The DC Circuit held that, based on the current record, how the Board reconciled its conclusion on pretext and the credibility finding was unclear. Accordingly, the court remanded for clarification by the Board of its treatment of the ALJ's credibility finding and the Company's evidence that the contract decisions were non-pretextual. The court otherwise denied the petition for review save for the issues the Board requested to be remanded. View "David Saxe Productions, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A district court's failure to comply with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N), by failing to discuss the appeal waiver at the plea hearing, does not affect a defendant's substantial rights if the defendant still knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to appeal. The court explained that, to determine whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to appeal, the court of appeals must examine the entire record, including both the written plea agreement and the plea hearing. In this case, defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his within-Guidelines sentence. Therefore, the district court's Rule 11(b)(1)(N) error at the plea hearing did not affect defendant's substantial rights and the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Parents of Z.B. filed suit alleging that DCPS failed to offer Z.B. a fourth grade education appropriate to her needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that DCPS complied with the IDEA in offering Z.B. the 2015 individualized education program (IEP), but remanded for the determination as to whether it did so when it offered her the 2014 IEP. In this case, it remained unclear whether and how DCPS itself made a valid assessment of Z.B.'s needs before it offered the 2014 IEP—and so whether that IEP was adequate. The court explained that the issue was whether each of the IEPs that was proffered was adequate at the time, not that it was the parents' burden to show that any possible placement in DCPS was not a viable option or would not have worked. View "Z. B. v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

PruittHealth appealed the Board's finding that the company's refusal to bargain constituted an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), and order requiring the company to bargain with the union. The DC Circuit denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. The court held that the Board's adoption of the Regional Director's decision overruling PruittHealth's blocking and threats-related objections was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with Board precedent. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over PruittHealth's claim that the Board erred in dismissing its unlawful photographing objection. In this case, the company failed to raise the claim with the Board in representation proceedings, as required by Section 10(e) of the Act. View "PruittHealth-Virginia Park, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

SBA filed suit seeking to enjoin rescission of an informal opinion letter issued by the FTC (the 2016 Letter). The 2016 Letter stated that it was the FTC staff's opinion that telemarketing technology used by SBA's members was subject to the FTC's regulation of so-called "robocalls," and it announced the rescission of a 2009 FTC staff letter that had reached the opposite conclusion. The DC Circuit dismissed the complaint for failure to state claim and held that because the 2016 staff opinion letter did not constitute the consummation of the Commission's decisionmaking process by its own terms and under the FTC's regulations, it was not final agency action. Finally, SBA's speech claims were pleaded as Administrative Procedure claims under 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(B) and could not proceed without final agency action. View "Soundboard Association v. FTC" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint seeking an injunction and declaratory relief to block the Department from pursuing administrative actions to determine whether Arch was obligated to pay benefits to certain of its former employees under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901–45 (2012). The court held that Congress intended the Act's statutory scheme to be exclusive with respect to the claims to which the statute applied. In this case, Arch's claims were of the type that Congress intended to be reviewed within the Act's statutory structure. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court's dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction because the Act assigned exclusive jurisdiction over Arch's challenges to the Department's administrative process and then the relevant federal court of appeals. View "Arch Coal, Inc. v. Acosta" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence, holding that the district court's resentencing decision was eminently reasonable. In this case, defendant argued that the hearing before the district court was tainted because, during the course of resentencing, the trial judge expressed some doubt about the judgment in Kpodi I and government counsel suggested that the district court should disregard this court's decision. The court held that, although government counsel showed little regard for its decision in Kpodi I, the record indicated that the trial judge fully complied with the court's judgment without being influenced by any improper considerations. View "United States v. Kpodi" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit granted a petition for review of FERC's assertion of Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdiction over the transportation and sale of natural gas for resale from the City of Clarksville, Tennessee to the City of Guthrie, Kentucky. As a preliminary matter, the court rejected FERC's standing and ripeness challenges to the court's authority to hear the petition for review. On the merits, the court saw no reason to deviate from the clear and unambiguous language of the statute, as well as FERC precedent, and held that Clarksville was a municipality that was exempt from regulation under NGA Section 7. The court also rejected FERC's alternative argument and held that the articulation of the scope of FERC's jurisdiction did not mean that Congress gave FERC jurisdiction over everything within the three areas listed by FERC. Therefore, the court vacated FERC's order. View "City of Clarksville, Tennessee v. FERC" on Justia Law

In 2011, Metropolitan Police Officer Leo and three other officers, part of the Gun Recovery Unit, encountered Briscoe in an apartment parking lot. When an officer asked Briscoe if he was carrying a gun, Briscoe fled. Two officers pursued Briscoe on foot, while Leo and another pursued in a police vehicle. Leo testified that he saw Briscoe’s right hand moving toward his waistband, causing Leo to fear that he was reaching for a gun. Briscoe repeatedly looked over his shoulder, toward the officers, and turned toward the police vehicle, pointing what appeared to Leo to be a gun. Leo fired two shots, striking Briscoe in the back. Briscoe was transported to the hospital where he died as a result of the wounds. A police search of the scene of the shooting recovered no actual firearm but produced a broken BB gun, which closely resembled a Walther PPK pistol. No fingerprints were found on the weapon. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court dismissed some claims. Some counts went to trial, resulting in a verdict for the defense. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, upholding the exclusion of Briscoe’s cell phone bill from evidence and the denial of sanctions for the prosecution’s late disclosure of a fingerprint report and of the fact that the BB gun had been swabbed for DNA. View "Lane v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law