Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, the Salvation Army (TSA), alleging that the organization had discriminated against her based on her disability when it denied her a reasonable accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), retaliated against her for statutorily protected activities in violation of the ADA and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and interfered with her rights under the FMLA. The district court granted summary judgment to TSA on all claims.The Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiff failed to establish that TSA discriminated against her by refusing to accommodate her under the ADA. However, plaintiff was entitled to trial on her ADA and FMLA retaliation claims where she exhausted her administrative remedies and she carried her burden of demonstrating that TSA did not hire her because of her illness, not because of her interview or job performance. Therefore, the employer's explanations to the contrary were pretextual. In regard to the FMLA interference claim, plaintiff established as a matter of law that TSA would have terminated her regardless of her request for or use of FMLA leave. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Batson v. The Salvation Army" on Justia Law

In February 2016, the Mayor of Birmingham signed Birmingham Ordinance No. 16-28, which guaranteed plaintiffs and all other wage earners in the city $10.10 per hour. The following day, the Alabama Governor signed the Minimum Wage and Right-to-Work Act into law, which nullified Ordinance No. 16-28, preempted all local labor and employment regulation, and mandated a uniform minimum wage throughout Alabama ($7.25 per hour).The Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim that the Minimum Wage Act had the purpose and effect of depriving Birmingham's black citizens equal economic opportunities on the basis of race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court affirmed the dismissal of the city from the suit, but reversed the district court's holding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to assert their claims against the attorney general and the State. On the merits, the court reversed the dismissal of the intentional discrimination claim, holding that a sensitive but thorough examination of plaintiffs' detailed allegations showed that plaintiffs have plausibly stated a claim of disparate impact and discriminatory intent. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' remaining claims. View "Lewis v. Governor of Alabama" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against his employer, the Customs and Border Protection Agency, alleging discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. After plaintiff suffered multiple injuries on the job, he returned to work and was erroneously placed in a lesser-paying position. Although the agency quickly corrected the error, plaintiff filed suit for retaliation and disability discrimination. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction based on the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.The court held that plaintiff waived his claim of retaliation on appeal when he failed to make arguments and cite authorities in support of his position. The court also held that the district court erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction where the statutory schemes of the Compensation Act and the Rehabilitation Act concerned different kinds of injuries and thus did not conflict. Therefore, the court could not avoid giving effect to both statutory schemes. Although the district court had jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's claim of disability discrimination, plaintiff failed to present evidence that the nondiscriminatory reasons offered by the agency were a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment as to the disability discrimination claim. View "Center v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action brought by plaintiff for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court held that the district court did not err by entering summary judgment for Abalux where plaintiff's employment was not covered by the Act because Abalux had annual gross sales of less than $500,000; Abalux was entitled to use the cash method to calculate its annual gross sales for 2015; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to expand discovery; and the district court did not commit any error when it struck plaintiff's notice of acceptance after a final judgment had already been entered. View "Collar v. Abalux, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who are valets, filed a putative class action against FCPS, alleging claims under the minimum-wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Eleventh Circuit held that, although the district court correctly ruled that the vehicles parked by plaintiffs were "goods" subject to the ultimate consumer exception, and not "materials" under the FLSA, FCPS was not entitled to summary judgment on the FLSA claims. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a jury could reasonably find that the uniforms they had to wear as valets for FCPS constituted "materials" under 29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(A). Furthermore, the labels on the uniforms, which reflect foreign manufacture, similarly created a jury issue as to whether the uniforms moved in international or interstate commerce under section 203(s)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Rodriguez Asalde v. First Class Parking Systems LLC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in an action brought by plaintiffs, former sheriff deputies, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA). The court held that the deputies were not entitled to compensation under the FLSA or the FMWA for the time that they spent donning and doffing police gear or the time that they spent driving to and from work in marked patrol vehicles. View "Llorca v. Sheriff, Collier County, Florida" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted Everglades' petition for review of the NLRB panel's order concluding that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In light of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), which held that employer-employee agreements did not violate the Act and must be enforced as written, the court reversed the NLRB panel's ruling that Everglades violated the NLRA by maintaining and enforcing an employment agreement requiring that employment disputes be resolved through individualized arbitration. The court vacated the NLRB panel's grant of summary judgment on the claim regarding prohibiting unfair labor charges and remanded it to the NLRB so that it can apply the new standard set forth in The Boeing Co., 365 N.L.R.B. No. 154 (Dec. 14, 2017) (abandoning the "reasonably construe" standard) and any other relevant law. Consequently, the court vacated the NLRB panel's ruling as to the unlawful discharge claim. Therefore, the court denied the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement. View "Everglades College, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted Cowabunga's petition for review of the NLRB panel's order concluding that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In light of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), which held that employer-employee agreements did not violate the Act and must be enforced as written, the court reversed the NLRB panel's ruling that Cowabunga violated the NLRA by maintaining and enforcing an employment agreement requiring that employment disputes be resolved through individualized arbitration. In accordance with the NLRB's request, the court vacated the NLRB panel's grant of summary judgment on the prohibiting unfair labor charges claim and remanded it to the NLRB so that it can apply the new standard set forth in The Boeing Co., 365 N.L.R.B. No. 154 (Dec. 14, 2017) (abandoning the "reasonably construe" standard) and any other relevant law. Therefore, the court denied the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement. View "Cowabunga, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Wilcox was a corrections officer at McRae Correctional Facility. On July 10, 2009, Wilcox’s coworker, Jackson slapped her on the buttocks. Wilcox filed a formal complaint with the company that operates the Facility that same day. The company told Jackson not to associate with Wilcox or be around her. In the days that followed, Jackson repeatedly rolled his eyes at Wilcox and once punched a metal machine in her presence to intimidate her. On July 23, Wilcox submitted a second complaint, adding that she was afraid he would touch her again, that this was not the first time that he had touched her, and that he stated he could touch her if he wanted to. Wilcox conceded that Jackson never touched her or made any inappropriate comments to her after her July 10 complaint. The company's outside investigator submitted a report finding that Jackson had sexually harassed Wilcox and other coworkers. On September 14, the company fired Jackson. Wilcox later filed suit under Title VII. On remand, a jury returned a verdict for Wilcox of $4,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of the company, finding that the company’s prompt remedial action in response to Wilcox’s complaints barred liability. View "Wilcox v. Corrections Corporation of America" on Justia Law

After plaintiff filed an employment discrimination case against US Steel, she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition that did not disclose the employment-discrimination claims. The Chapter 7 Trustee was treating the bankruptcy as a “no asset” case. U.S. Steel moved the district court for dismissal. An Eleventh Circuit panel initially affirmed the district court in holding that judicial estoppel required dismissal of the bankruptcy case. Upon rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit overruled precedent “that permitted the inference that a plaintiff intended to make a mockery of the judicial system simply because he failed to disclose a civil claim” and remanded for a determination of whether a plaintiff’s inconsistent statements were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system. When the plaintiff’s inconsistent statement is an omission in bankruptcy disclosures, the court may consider such factors as the plaintiff’s level of sophistication, whether and under what circumstances the plaintiff corrected the disclosures, whether the plaintiff told his bankruptcy attorney about the civil claims before filing the bankruptcy disclosures, whether the trustee or creditors were aware of the claims before the plaintiff amended the disclosures, whether the plaintiff identified other lawsuits to which he was party, any findings or actions by the bankruptcy court after the omission was discovered, and any other fact relevant to the intent inquiry.” View "Slater v. United States Steel Corp." on Justia Law