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

Plaintiff filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983, against the School District and the School Board, alleging that they discriminated and retaliated against her by refusing to renew her employment contract and filing an ethics complaint against her. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court concluded that the proper framework for examining mixed-motive claims based on circumstantial evidence is the approach adopted by the Sixth Circuit in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., - not the McDonnell Douglas framework. Applying the proper mixed-motive framework to plaintiff's discrimination claims, the court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her claims against the School District and School Board members Scott Morgan and Mark Nesmith. However, the court found that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's remaining discrimination claims, as well as all of her retaliation claims. Therefore, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Quigg v. Thomas Cnty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Crew One refers stagehands to the producers of concerts and other live events in the Atlanta area. The Board determined that the stagehands were employees of Crew One, which gave the Board authority to regulate their relationship. The Board later directed an election and certified a union, and when Crew One refused to negotiate with the union, the Board entered summary judgment against Crew One for an unfair labor practice. Crew One petitioned for review. After considering all the relevant factors, the court concluded that the stagehands are independent contractors where the most important factor, control, supports this conclusion. Further, the failure to withhold taxes, the independent contractor agreements, the nature of Crew One’s business, the absence of benefits, the tools, and the insurance provided by the clients also support this conclusion. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, denied the cross-application for enforcement, and vacated the decision of the Board. View "Crew One Productions v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Quinlan petitioned for review of the Commission's final decision holding that Quinlan violated standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., when two of its employees were caught working on a concrete block wall and roof platform without fall protection and using a stepladder in an unsafe manner. Upon review of the record, briefs, and the relevant case law, and with benefit of oral argument, the court held that it is appropriate to impute a supervisor's knowledge of a subordinate employee’s violative conduct to his employer under OSHA when the supervisor himself is simultaneously involved in violative conduct. Accordingly, the court denied the petition and affirmed the Commission's decision. View "Quinlan v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

The company appealed the district court's order compelling arbitration of a dispute between the Company and the Union in June 2012 and the district court's enforcement of the resulting arbitration award in favor of the Union in December 2014. Although the June 2012 order was a final decision when it was issued, the Company did not appeal it until after the district court entered the December 2014 order. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the first order. In regards to the December 14 order, the court affirmed because no basis exists to vacate the arbitration award in this instance. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Union's motion for attorney's fees. The court dismissed in part and affirmed in part. View "United Steel v. Wise Alloys, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 623(a)(2), alleging that RJ Reynolds discriminated against him on the basis of his age when it rejected his application for employment. The court held that section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA authorizes disparate impact claims by applicants for employment even though the statute is unclear. The EEOC has reasonably and consistently interpreted the statute to cover such claims and the court deferred to the agency's reading of the statute. The court concluded that, in this case, plaintiff is entitled to equitable tolling of the ADEA's limitations period where plaintiff alleges that he could not have even suspected age discrimination until shortly before he filed his charge of discrimination. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, five university employees, filed suit claiming that their grievance alleging mismanagement by their supervisor which preceded their termination is entitled to First Amendment protection. Plaintiffs claimed that they were terminated in retaliation for submitting a memorandum to university officials complaining about what they perceived to be poor leadership and mismanagement by the director of the Counseling and Testing Center of Georgia State University. The district court found that plaintiffs' memorandum constituted employee speech on an issue related to their professional duties, which is not subject to First Amendment protection. The court found that the district court correctly concluded that the speech for which plaintiffs seek First Amendment protection was made by them as employees and not as citizens, and on matters related to their employment and not public concern. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Alves v. Board of Regents" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was terminated from his position as head football coach, plaintiff filed suit against the School District under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and related federal laws, alleging that the school district committed racially discriminatory employment decisions. The court concluded that, although plaintiff produced sufficient evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to infer that he was treated unfairly, he has failed to produce any evidence suggesting that his treatment was on account of his race. The school district argued that it terminated plaintiff because he committed recruiting violations that resulted in ineligible students being enrolled at the high school to play football. The court rejected plaintiff's contentions and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district. View "Flowers v. Troup Cnty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Allied suspended and discharged two of the employees who supported the campaign to elect the union after Allied employees elected the union to represent them. The Board found that Allied illegally interfered with its employees’ union activities and unlawfully retaliated against the employees. The Board ordered Allied to refrain from future violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., and to reinstate the employees with backpay. The court granted the petition for enforcement, concluding that the petition for enforcement is not moot and that substantial evidence supports the finding of the Board that the employees' support for the union was a motivating factor in the decision to fire them. The employees both actively supported and participated in the campaign to elect a union; Allied knew that the employees supported the union, and it suspended and discharged them only weeks after the workers voted in favor of the union; and Allied's CEO expressed antiunion animus. Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Allied would not have suspended and discharged the employees in the absence of their union activities. View "NLRB v. Allied Medical Transport, Inc." on Justia Law

The Union filed a grievance against Verizon under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), after Verizon eliminated communications technician positions. At issue on appeal was whether the arbitrator exceeded his power by issuing a substituted award after he determined that he had exceeded his power in the original award. In this case, the arbitrator decided, at least initially, that the issue submitted included both the “minimal additional training” and the “previously held” language in the CBA. While the arbitrator was later persuaded that this was error, Rule 40 of the AAA Labor Arbitration Rules precluded him from making that determination and issuing the substituted award. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the arbitrator exceeded his power. View "Local Union 824, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Verizon Florida, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former student registered nurse anesthetists, filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., seeking to recover unpaid wages and overtime for their clinical hours. The district court determined that plaintiffs were not “employees” of defendants and entered summary judgment for defendants. The court adopted an application of Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.'s “primary beneficiary” test specifically tailored to account for the unique qualities of the type of internship at issue in this case. The court remanded to allow the district court to apply this test in the first instance and, if the district court desires, to give the parties an opportunity to further develop the record to address the components of the test. View "Schumann v. Collier Anesthesia" on Justia Law