|
***
Featured Cases ***
***
Capsules ***
Davis v. McKinney (5th
Cir 02/21/2008)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0720184cv0p.pdf
Davis sued the
employer under 42 USC Section 1983 alleging retaliatory
discharge in violation of the First Amendment. The trial court
denied the employer's motion for summary judgment including
the portion requesting qualified immunity. The 5th Circuit
affirmed in part and reversed in part that portion of the
order denying qualified immunity.
The court found the
7th Circuit's application of the new test established in
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S Ct 1951 (2006) persuasive: "Garcetti
... holds that before asking whether the subject matter of
particular speech is a topic of public concern, the court must
decide whether the plaintiff was speaking 'as a citizen' or as
part of her public job. Only when government penalizes speech
that a plaintiff utters 'as a citizen' must the court consider
the balance of public and private interests, along with the
other questions posed by Pickering [v. Board of Educ., 391 US
563 (1968)] and its successors,...." Mills v. City of
Evansville, 452 F3d 646 (7th Cir 2006). The court followed the
9th Circuit's approach in Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F3d 528 (2006)
and analyzed Davis's complaint letter into those complaints up
the chain of command at her workplace about her job duties as
an auditor which were made as an employee, and those
complaints to persons outside the work place in addition to
raising them up the chain of command which were made as a
citizen. The court remanded for the trial court's
consideration of whether the speech raised as a citizen
involved matters of public concern.
Chavez v. City of Los
Angeles (California Ct App 02/22/2008)
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192375.PDF
Chavez filed a motion
for attorney fees under the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA) in the amount of $871,000.00 in a statutory retaliation
action case where the jury awarded $11,500.00 to Chavez. The
trial court denied the motion based on the Code of Civil
Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a) because the recovery
was below the statutory minimum. The California Court of
Appeal reversed. In the court's view, section 1033 did not
apply to actions brought under FEHA. The court stated that the
statutory fee provisions of the FEHA were meant to ease the
burden on plaintiffs of limited means so they could bring
meritorious suits to vindicate key public policies. The court
distinguished Steele v. Jensen Instrument Co., 59 Cal App 4th
326 (1997) because the employer in this case made no offer to
comprise and Chavez prevailed on one cause of action against
his employer and one individual.
Adams v. Suozzi (2nd
Cir 02/22/2008)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/065725p.pdf
Adams sued the
employer for imposition of a "lag payroll procedure"
defined as ten days of pay deferred over ten bi-weekly pay
periods to be returned at separation from employment. Adams
alleged violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, the Contracts Clause, and other claims. The trial
court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on
Adams' substantive due process and contracts clause claims,
and granted Adams' motion for summery judgment on the
procedural due process claim. The 2nd Circuit reversed on the
procedural due process claim. The court found no violation of
the Due Process Clause because the employer provided
pre-deprivation notice of the lag payroll and the grievance
procedures of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) were
adequate to remedy any potential right Adams possessed not to
have his pay lagged.
Hastings v. Wilson
(8th Cir 02/22/2008)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/071611p.pdf
Hastings, an airline
employee, sued the employer for violation of ERISA alleging
breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted the
employer's motion to dismiss. The 8th Circuit affirmed. One
issue on appeal was whether the Railway Labor Act's (RLA)
mandatory arbitration provision (45 USC Section 184) divested
federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found
that: (1) the agreements between the employer and the union
constituted collective bargaining agreements (CBA) and the
pension plan was maintained pursuant to them; (2) because the
breach of fiduciary duty claims involving the pension plan
required an interpretation and application of the CBAs, they
constituted minor disputes within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the RLA adjustment board: and (3) the pamphlets distributed
by the employer indicating plan participants could file suit
in federal court did not circumvent the RLA's arbitration
requirement.
SEIU v. Colcord
(California Ct App 02/22/2008)
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A116364.PDF
The union sued Colcord
for breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Labor
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and common
law, for fraudulent concealment, for unfair business
practices, and for other claims alleging Colcord secretly
organized a decertification campaign while employed as a field
representative of the union. The trial court awarded
compensatory damages (salary and benefits and decertification
campaign costs) and punitive damages to the union. The
California Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in
part. The court found the disgorgement of salary and benefits
was an appropriate remedy in this case as restitution for the
tortious wrong Colcord committed against his union employer.
The court agreed with Colcord that the election cost award was
speculative and could not be sustained.
|
