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

Plaintiff sued United States Attorney General Eric Holder, alleging that the FBI refused to hire him as a special agent because of his Type I diabetes in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. A jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him compensatory damages. Subsequently, the district court denied both Holder's motion for judgment as a matter of law and plaintiff's request for equitable relief. Both parties appealed. The court held that a reasonable jury could reasonably conclude that plaintiff's diabetes and treatment regiment "substantially limited" his major life activity of eating and that plaintiff was therefore disabled within the meaning of the Act. Rejecting the remaining arguments, the court held that the district court did not err in denying Holder's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of equitable relief to plaintiff and rejected plaintiff's assertion that the district court erred in denying him front pay or instatement based on Holder's after-acquired evidence defense and in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to back pay based on the testimony of Holder's expert witness. View "Kapche v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, parents of children who were eligible to receive a free and appropriate public education, filed suit to challenge the exclusion of mapping of cochlear implants from the regulatory definition of "related services" under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1401(26)(B). The court concluded that the phrase "audiology services" as used in the IDEA's "related services" definition did not unambiguously encompass mapping of cochlear implants. The court also found that the Mapping Regulations embodied a permissible construction of the IDEA because they were rationally related to the underlying objectives of the IDEA. The court further found that the Mapping Regulations did not substantially lessen the protections afforded by the 1983 regulations. Because the Department's construction of its own regulation was neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulation, the court owed it deference. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Department. View "Petit, et al. v. US Dept. of Education, et al." on Justia Law

Manufacturers obtained authorization from the Board to discontinue service over its entire system but the Board did not apply its entire-system exception. Instead, the Board required Manufacturers to pay dismissal allowances to its dismissed employees. The court concluded that the Board did not reasonably explain and justify the departure from its longstanding entire-system exception. Therefore, the court found that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the Board's decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Manufacturers Railway Co. v. STB, et al." on Justia Law

OSHA cited and fined petitioner for failing to properly record certain workplace injuries and for failing to properly maintain its injury log between January 2002 and April 2006. OSHA issued the citations in November 2006, which was, as petitioner pointed out, at least six months after the last unrecorded injury occurred. Because "[n]o citation may be issued...after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any violation, " 29 U.S.C. 658(c), the court agreed with petitioner that the citations were untimely and should be vacated. View "AKM LLC v. Secretary of Labor, et al." on Justia Law

This was an appeal from the denial of declaratory and injunctive relief against the foreclosure sale of an apartment complex for elderly and disabled low-income residents by HUD. The complex was funded by Section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (Section 811), 42 U.S.C. 8013. Following the district court's grant of summary judgment and denial of injunctive relief against the foreclosure sale, HUD resumed foreclosure proceedings. HUD subsequently sold the property to a third party not before the court. Consequently, the court could not grant NBC effective relief and dismissed the appeal as moot. View "NBC-USA Housing, Inc, et al. v. Donovan, et al." on Justia Law

The Postal Service determined, in two informal adjudications, that PenAir was qualified to carry "nonpriority bypass mail" on five Alaska routes. The Postal Service acted pursuant to the Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002, 39 U.S.C. 5402(a)(4), (a)(13), and (g)(4)(A) and (5), which permitted PenAir to enter five routes as what was termed a "mainline bypass mail carrier" only if it met certain statutory conditions. Three competing carriers sued to challenge the Postal Service's determinations as contrary to the Act. The district court ultimately concluded that the Postal Service's position was authorized. The court held, however, that the three relevant statutory sections were quite ambiguous and because the court had no authoritative Postal Service interpretations of the statute at issue, the court vacated the district court's judgment with instructions to remand. View "Northern Air Cargo, et al. v. USPS" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed derivative actions asserting claims against Fannie Mae's directors regarding accounting irregularities. The district court entered three orders now on appeal, substituting Fannie Mae's conservator, the FHFA, for plaintiff shareholders. The court affirmed the orders but reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. The court also held that dismissal on the grounds of claim preclusion was moot. View "Kellmer v. Raines, et al." on Justia Law

Occidental and a number of its subsidiaries petitioned for review of final orders of the FERC granting negotiated rate authority to Tres Amigas, a proposed energy transmission project. Occidental argued that Tres Amigas did not satisfy the criteria the FERC had set out as preconditions for such authority. Because the court concluded that Occidental lacked standing to challenge these orders, the court did not reach this question and instead dismissed the petition. View "Occidental Permian Ltd. v. FERC" on Justia Law

The Board sought enforcement of its order directing the Company to bargain in good faith with the Union. The Company, in its petition for review, contested the Board's certification of the election in which the Union was named the bargaining representative of the Company's valet parking employees. The court concluded that the Board established the record of its analysis under the three-prong test of Associated Milk Producers, Inc. v. NLRB, necessary to support its conclusions regarding the parties' intent with regard to the stipulated bargaining unit. Extrinsic evidence relied on by the Company failed to demonstrate error. The court also concluded that the failure of the Board Agent to provide identification badges to election observers did not result in an unfair or invalid election in the absence of evidence that the failure materially affected the result of the election, and the company offered no such evidence. Therefore, the Board acted within its discretion in sustaining the Union's challenges to the eight ballots cast by dual-rated bell-desk employees and in rejecting the Company's objections alleging misconduct by the Board's Agent. The Board was thus entitled to enforcement of its findings that the Company violated sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (5). View "Hard Rock Holdings, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute over operation of an Exxon gas station located next to the Watergate in Washington, D.C. Metroil sued Exxon and Anacostia, claiming three violations of federal and D.C. law relating to the sale of the station by Exxon to Anacostia. The court concluded that the Retail Service Station Amendment Act of 2009, D.C. Code 36-304.12(a), did not take effect until after Exxon's sale to Anacostia and the law therefore did not give Metroil a right of first refusal in this case. Because it was undisputed that Metroil still operates the gas station, buys and sells Exxon fuel, and uses the Exxon trademark, the franchise relationship has continued. Therefore, Metroil's Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2802, claim was properly dismissed. All of the burdens and risks alleged by Metroil were permitted by the original contract and were not attributable to the assignment. Therefore, the court rejected Metroil's claims that Exxon violated the D.C. Code's prohibition against contract assignments that materially increased the burden or risk on the non-assigning party. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Metroil, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., et al." on Justia Law