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

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

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that her former employer, Hamlin, discriminated against her on the basis of race and disability, and that Hamlin interfered with, or retaliated against her for exercising her right to take medical leave. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and sua sponte dismissed with prejudice her second amended complaint. The court concluded that the district court evaluated plaintiff’s race- and disability discrimination claims under the wrong standard, but that even under the right standard, her complaint plainly fails to make out a claim of disability discrimination; and the district court improperly dismissed the interference portion of her Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., claim without giving her notice and an opportunity to respond, though it properly dismissed the retaliation portion of this claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. View "Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Beltram, her former employer, claiming that it interfered with her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2631-2636, by firing her instead of giving her medical leave. The district court dismissed plaintiff's interference claim and declined to consider her two alternative causes of action. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court concluded that there are disputes of fact about whether plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition; she gave proper notice to Beltram of her need for FMLA leave; and her doctor’s initial estimate that she would need more than twelve weeks of leave disqualified her from FMLA leave. The court further concluded that the district court properly dismissed the first cause of action alleging that Beltram failed to give proper notice to employees about their rights and obligations under the FMLA, but erred in dismissing the second cause of action alleging retaliation against plaintiff for exercising her FMLA rights where plaintiff's allegation that Beltram terminated her for taking leave put Beltram on notice that she was stating a retaliation cause of action. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against DHL, alleging that it violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. 2102(a), by failing to provide 60 days' notice before plaintiff was laid off from his job at one of DHL's facilities. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DHL. The court affirmed, concluding that, even assuming DHL qualified as plaintiff's employer, plaintiff cannot show that he was the subject of a mass lay off under the WARN Act. Plaintiff presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the facility he worked at constituted a single site of employment, a necessary element for a WARN Act violation. View "Likes v. DHL Express" on Justia Law

Drivers working for FedEx in Florida filed suit alleging a number of statutory and common-law claims against the company. At issue was whether FedEx properly classified the drivers as independent contractors. Applying Florida law, the court determined that several factors support the conclusion that the Florida drivers are independent contractors: the Operating Agreement itself identifies the drivers as independent contractors; FedEx pays the Florida drivers on a "settlement" basis; and the drivers can sell part or all of their service areas with notice or they can acquire service areas from other drivers. However, the court concluded that these contractual terms are not dispositive where, inter alia, other provisions of the Operating Agreement, together with FedEx's standard practices and procedures, seem to belie the creation of the status agreed to by the parties. Therefore, the court reversed the MDL court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx on the drivers’ employment status where there are genuine issues of matter fact as to whether the drivers are employees or independent contractors. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx on the individual claims of Plaintiff Mosher and Harting. View "Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc." on Justia Law