Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

[11/21] Royall v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO
In an employment-discrimination case, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that defendant's reason for terminating plaintiff's employment was a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

[11/21] Martin v. Toledo Cardiology Consultants, Inc.
In a case brought by plaintiff-employee lab technician under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer cardiology office and dismissal of case is reversed and remanded where: 1) in addressing the plaintiff-employee's prima facie age discrimination case, the district court impermissibly made factual determinations and improperly drew inferences in favor solely of the defendant; and similarly 2) with the retaliation claim, the district court impermissibly made factual findings and did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the non-moving party.

[11/20] Artesia Dairy v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
Defendant-Labor Board's decision excluding certain persons employed by plaintiff-dairy from voting on the United Farm Workers of America's (UFW) petition to represent plaintiff's agricultural employees is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the nephews of plaintiff's owners did not fall under the regulation that excluded the owner's children from voter eligibility; 2) based on the evidence presented, defendant correctly concluded that the individual who maintained the lawn area around the dairy was not an agricultural employee; 3) it was appropriate for defendant to apply a substantiality test in determining whether an individual who engaged in childcare and cleaning was an agricultural employee; and 4) substantial evidence supported defendant's conclusion that the two individuals with supervisory duties were supervisors and thus ineligible to vote.

[11/20] Tucker v. Grossmont Union High Sch.
Grant of an extraordinary writ requiring defendant-school district to reemploy plaintiff in preference to new applicants for any available position with district for which plaintiff applies and for which he is qualified is affirmed where: 1) Education Code section 45298 gave employees laid-off for lack of work or lack of funds reemployment preference over new applicants; and 2) Education Code section 45308 is relevant to the rights of the individual members of a class vis-a-vis each other and is not relevant to the rights of laid-off employees versus new applicants.

More...

ERISA

[11/07] Marrs v. Motorola, Inc.
In an ERISA class action, plaintiff-appellant's motion for leave to correct his notice of appeal to clarify that he was appealing in both his individual and representative capacities is denied where, under Fed. R. App. P. 3(c), failure to indicate that a class representative is appealing in his representative capacity stripped the court of jurisdiction to hear the arguments of the class.

[10/30] Oliver v. Coca Cola Co.
In light of controlling precedent in White v. Coca-Cola Co., which found defendant's interpretation of the offset provision to be reasonable and entitled to deference, the issue of damages is remanded for recalculation. All other previous rulings in Oliver v. Coca-Cola Co., 506 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) are affirmed.

[10/23] Leister v. Dovetail, Inc.
In a suit by an employee under ERISA to recover 401(k) contributions that defendant-employer allegedly promised but failed to make, judgment and award of damages to plaintiff and denial of statutory penalties are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff was entitled to relief under both breach-of-fiduciary-duty and recovery-of-benefits-owed claims; 2) the relief under the benefits-recovery claim was to consist of both the unpaid contributions and a reasonable estimate of their growth had they been timely deposited in plaintiff's 401(k) plan, and remand was necessary to recalculate the benefits owed; 3) a supplemental claim regarding failure to pay sales commissions was not an ERISA claim, but must be considered on remand as a supplemental state-law claim; and 4) the failure to grant statutory penalties must be reconsidered on remand in light of defendants' willful conduct and ability to pay.

[10/22] Orth v. Wisconsin State Employees Union, Council 24
In a suit under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act alleging that defendants violated the provisions of an ERISA plain contained in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the contract was clear on its face as to the percentage of plaintiff's health-insurance premiums the employer was to pay, and subsequent modifications to the CBA were not evidence of a latent ambiguity in the agreement; 2) the principle that contracts can be modified by the subsequent conduct of the parties is inapplicable to ERISA plans unless the conduct is proved by a writing; and 3) the award of attorneys' fees in an amount greater than the remedial award was proper.

More...

Immigration Law

[11/21] Jimenez-Gonzalez v. Mukasey
Petition for review of an order of removal based on petitioner's conviction on a state charge of criminal recklessness is granted where criminal recklessness is not a crime of violence for immigration purposes.

[11/20] Kalilu v. Mukasey
Petition for review of BIA decision is dismissed in part, denied in part, and granted in part where: 1) there was no appellate jurisdiction to review petitioner's claim to asylum and request for voluntary departure; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of a motion for withholding of removal; 3) remand was required to allow application of new standards for determining whether an asylum application was frivolous, and for reconsideration of a motion to reopen.

[11/20] Abebe v. Mukasey
Petition for review of denial of relief under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act via a discretionary waiver of deportation is denied in part and dismissed in part by the court sitting en banc where: 1) there was a rational basis for section 212(c) being limited to discretionary relief from inadmissibility, but not from deportation; and 2) there was therefore no equal-protection violation in the denial of such relief.

[11/19] Diallo v. US Dept. of Justice
Petition for review of decision denying native citizen of Guinea asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), is granted where: 1) given the presence of errors in the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision as to issues that were properly exhausted and the plausibility of other newly claimed errors, remand to the BIA would not have been futile; and 2) there were sufficient exhausted flaws in the reasoning of the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility determination to warrant a remand, and the court could not confidently predict the same outcome if there were further agency reconsideration.

More...

Workers' Comp

[11/12] Pratt v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In a suit against defendant-employer brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act for personal injuries suffered at work, a court order prohibiting defendant-railroad company from compelling plaintiff-employee to attend a medical examination or conducting a disciplinary hearing to terminate plaintiff's employment for refusing to provide it with medical evidence justifying his continued absence from work is affirmed where: 1) the trial court had jurisdiction to prohibit extra-judicial discovery because the civil rules of discovery provide independent authority to grant a protective order for misuse of the discovery process; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding monetary sanctions where the sanctions served not to punish but rather to encourage voluntary compliance with the discovery procedures.

[11/06] B & D Contracting v. Pearley
In a challenge to the amount of an award of disability benefits pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act, employer's petition for review of the award is denied where employer's per diem payments to claimant were properly classified by the Benefits Review Board as wages, and were required to be included in benefit calculations as such.

[10/30] Power Fabricating, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
In an action for declaratory relief and damages arising from defendant's failure to defend plaintiff in action brought by widow of a worker who was fatally injured in an industrial accident, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) employer liability insurance (ELI) coverage can accrue only if (a) the worker was acting in the course and scope of employment of the insured and (b) workers' compensation law either does not apply to the situation or the employer may be sued in a capacity other than as an employer; and 2) because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of the conditions required in (b), ELI coverage could not be triggered.

[10/28] Stetzer v. Logistec of Connecticut, Inc.
Decision by defendant-Benefits Review Board regarding award of workers compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. section 901 (2003) is affirmed where: 1) the prior award of benefits was unenforceable because the amount of compensation could not be determined without an additional ruling on disputed evidence that was not before the original administrative law judge; 2) the second law judge properly modified the original benefits award pursuant to 33 U.S.C. section 922; and 3) the court did not review the Board's decision attorney's fees because it was not final.

More...

Insurance Law

[11/19] Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In a class action claim for statutory penalties under section 5106(a) of New York insurance law against defendant-Allstate Insurance Company, grant of motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 901(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules may be applied in a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction and adjudicating claims under state law; and 2) section 5016(a) did not fall within the exception clause of section 901(b).

[11/18] Redmon v. Sud-Chemie Inc. Ret. Plan for Union Employees
In a claim for failure to pay plaintiff-wife survivor benefits due under her husband's retirement plan and for failing to provide her with plan information she requested, dismissal of plaintiff's claims where: 1) plaintiff did not submit a claim to defendant-retirement plan until 6.5 years after her claim accrued and 1.5 years after the applicable statute of limitations had expired; and 2) accordingly, plaintiff's claim was time-barred.

[11/18] Gagliano v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
In an action for disability benefits, a judgment that plaintiff-insured was entitled to benefits under a policy issued by defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) defendant-insurance company violated Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); however 2) the proper remedy was to remand the case to the plan administrator for a full and fair review.

[11/17] The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.

More...