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

IronTiger petitioned for review of the Board's determination that it failed to timely respond to a union request for information the Board deemed presumptively relevant, even though ultimately found irrelevant. The company claimed that the union was seeking to harass the company by asking for obviously burdensome and irrelevant material. The court rejected IronTiger's broad challenge to the Board's policy requiring an employee to timely respond to a union's request for information that is presumptively relevant. The court concluded, however, that the company's complaint may have been justified but the ALJ and the Board did not respond to this contention. Therefore, the Board must consider both the petitioner's defense and the implication of a rule that would permit a union to harass an employer by repeated and burdensome requests for irrelevant information only because it can be said it somehow relates to bargaining unit employees – without even a union’s statement of its need. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "IronTiger Logistics, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellant, while pursuing her Ph.D. in Politics, submitted requests to the DOD under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. By statute, educational institutions are eligible for reduced fees when they make FOIA requests. The Government has long determined that teachers who make FOIA requests are eligible for those reduced fees because teachers are part of an educational institution. But at the same time, the Government has determined that students who make FOIA requests are not eligible for those reduced fees because they are supposedly not part of an educational institution. The court disagreed, concluding that if teachers can qualify for reduced fees, so can students. Students who make FOIA requests to further their coursework or other school-sponsored activities are eligible for reduced fees under FOIA because students, like teachers, are part of an educational institution. Therefore, appellant is eligible for reduced fees for her FOIA request in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sack v. DOD" on Justia Law

Petitioner moved for one of the three judges of the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, Judge William B. Pollard III, to disqualify himself. Judge Pollard is a civilian who serves as a part-time judge on the court. He also maintains a private law practice. Petitioner contends that this arrangement is unlawful and requires Judge Pollard’s disqualification. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Pollard's disqualification. Petitioner argued that Judge Pollard’s disqualification is compelled by the Rules of Practice of the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review; petitioner raises another related argument under the appearance of impartiality standard incorporated into the Rules of Practice; Judge Pollard must disqualify himself because the Judge’s part-time private practice of law violates 18 U.S.C. 203(a), a criminal statute; and Judge Pollard has violated 28 U.S.C. 454, which states that any justice or judge appointed under the authority of the United States who engages in the practice of law is guilty of a high misdemeanor. Although the court concluded that petitioner's arguments carry some force, he has not shown a "clear and indisputable" right to relief at this time. Therefore, the court denied the petition. The court noted that if the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review decides against petitioner in his pending appeal, he may renew his arguments about Judge Pollard on direct appeal to this court. View "In re: Omar Khadr" on Justia Law

HTH petitioned for review of five extraordinary remedies imposed by the Board after the Board determined that HTH committed a host of severe and pervasive unfair labor practices. Three of the remedies were adopted by the Board sua sponte and the remaining two were recommended by the ALJ but then modified by the Board. The court concluded that, because the company failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the Board, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the company's objections to all but two of the challenged remedies. As to these two, the court upheld the notice-reading remedy given the company's long history of unlawful practices and the severe violations the Board found in this case. However, the court vacated the attorney's fees because the Board lacks authority to shift litigation expenses under section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(c). View "HTH Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Employees of ManorCare selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. ManorCare objected to the election results, claiming several employees eligible to vote in the election threatened to physically harm other employees and harm their property - a circumstance the company alleges destroyed the “laboratory conditions” necessary for a fair and free election. On appeal, ManorCare challenged the Board's order requiring it to bargain with the union. The court concluded that the Board abused its discretion by finding that the threats did not create a "general atmosphere of fear and reprisal" according to the Board's own precedent. Because the Board arbitrarily departed from its own analytical framework for evaluating the allegations of third-party electoral misconduct, the court granted ManorCare's petition as to that issue. The court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement in all other respects. View "ManorCare of Kingston PA, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Regional Director issued a complaint alleging that petitioner had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5), (1), by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union following Board certification. The Board granted summary judgment, holding that petitioner had violated the Act as charged. The Board disposed of petitioner's contention that the Union impermissibly deceived voters by distributing a campaign flyer pursuant to Midland National Life Insurance Co.; dismissed petitioner's claim that the Board Agent handling the election compromised the integrity of the election in various ways when, inter alia, she carried the election booth and the ballot box to petitioner’s parking lot to permit a disabled employee to cast a ballot, because there was nothing to indicate that the manner in which the election was conducted raised a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election; and petitioner was not entitled to a hearing on its objections because it failed to proffer evidence raising any substantial and material factual issues. The court concluded that the Board’s Decisions and Orders are neither arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, nor otherwise not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the cross-application for enforcement. View "Durham School Services, LP v. NLRB" on Justia Law

GSS appealed the district court’s dismissal of its second attempt to confirm a $44 million arbitral award entered against the Port Authority for breach of a construction contract. GSS first tried to confirm the award, but the district court found that it had no personal jurisdiction over the Port Authority. Then GSS filed its second petition, also naming the Republic of Liberia, which owns the Port Authority, as respondents. The district court again dismissed GSS’s petition, finding that issue preclusion barred relitigating its personal jurisdiction over the Port Authority and that GSS failed to demonstrate that Liberia was liable for the Port Authority’s alleged breach. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims against Liberia for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1330 et seq.; affirmed the district court's dismissal of GSS's petition against the Port Authority on sovereign immunities grounds; and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing GSS's petition before allowing jurisdictional discovery. View "GSS Group Ltd. v. Republic of Liberia" on Justia Law

Noel Canning seeks review of the Board's decision and order determining that Noel Canning violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151-169, and ordering relief against it. Noel Canning argued that the court's disposition vacating a prior order in the same dispute left no authority with the Board to enter this further decision and order. The court concluded that the Board’s decision to reconsider the merits of the case and issue a new decision and order was not only consistent with this Court’s Noel Canning I mandate, but also reasonable and in furtherance of justice. The court noted that it is highly unlikely that the law would establish that a question properly presented to the labor board must pend forever if the board for procedural or quorum-related reasons invalidly entered its first order. Finally, in regard to the Board's cross-application for enforcement, Noel Canning does not contest the Board's finding that it violated the NLRA by refusing to reduce to writing and execute a collective bargaining agreement arrived at through collective bargaining with the union. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the cross-application for enforcement. View "Noel Canning v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellants filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., seeking to obtain a copy of a report authored by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Before the Committee conducted a comprehensive review of the program of detention and interrogation formerly run by the CIA, arrangements and rules were memorialized in a June 2, 2009, letter sent by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Committee to the CIA Director. In 2014, after completing its review and receiving comments and proposed edits, the Committee produced an end product that included a 6,000-plus page investigative report (Full Report) and a 500-plus page Executive Summary. The court concluded that the June 2009 Letter manifests a clear intent by the Senate Committee to maintain continuous control over its work product, which includes the Full Report. Therefore, the Full Report always has been a congressional document subject to the control of the Senate Committee. The mere transmission of the Full Report to agency officials for their consideration and use within the Executive Branch did not vitiate the command of the June 2009 Letter or constitute congressional relinquishment of control over the document. Accordingly, the Full Report is a congressionally generated and controlled document that is not subject to disclosure under FOIA. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit based on lack of jurisdiction. View "ACLU v. CIA" on Justia Law

Appellants filed suit alleging that their health insurance premiums increased by 57% at the end of 2014 because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 26 U.S.C. 5000A(a)-(c). Appellants contend that in late 2013, HHS unlawfully implemented two policies: a “Transitional Policy,” which permitted health insurance companies to temporarily continue providing health insurance plans that do not comply with ACA requirements; and a “Hardship Exemption,” which permitted some individuals whose policies were cancelled for noncompliance to avoid the penalty under the individual mandate. The court affirmed the district court's determination that appellants lack standing because they have failed to demonstrate that the Transitional Policy caused appellants’ insurer, Blue Cross, to increase the premium for their health care plan specifically. Additionally, any alleged injury to appellants from the Transitional Policy stemmed not from the Policy itself, which HHS applied evenhandedly, but from Blue Cross’s decision not to take advantage of the Policy. Accordingly, appellants also lack standing to bring their equal protection challenge. View "American Freedom Law Center v. Obama" on Justia Law