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

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

Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination action under the Florida Whistleblower Act (FWA), Fla. Stat. 448.102(3). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the action. The court agreed with the district court that the action was preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA), 12 U.S.C. 24. The court joined the Fourth Circuit and other federal circuits, holding that the at-pleasure provision of the NBA preempts plaintiff's claim under the FWA for wrongful discharge under Florida law because the FWA is in direct conflict with the NBA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wiersum v. U.S. Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed a district court's order granting defendants judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim. Plaintiff asserted the claim after being terminated from his position as Assistant Fire Chief of the City of Pembroke Pines. Plaintiff was terminated after the City eliminated the Assistant Fire Chief position for what the City said were budgetary reasons. Plaintiff contended he was terminated in retaliation for his speaking out about the City's handling of budget and pension issues. After a trial, the district court held that Plaintiff had failed to show that his speech was protected by the First Amendment or that his interest in the speech outweighed the City's interest in avoiding dissension within the fire department. Accordingly, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law. After a careful review of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Moss v. City of Pembroke Pines" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against Zenith after Santana Morales, Jr. was crushed to death by a palm tree while working as a landscaper for Lawns. The Florida Supreme Court answered the following certified questions in the affirmative: (1) Does the estate have standing to bring its breach of contract claim against Zenith under the employer liability policy? (2) If so, does the provision in the employer liability policy which excludes from coverage "any obligation imposed by workers' compensation... law" operate to exclude coverage of the estate's claim against Zenith for the tort judgment? and (3) If the estate's claim is not barred by the workers' compensation exclusion, does the release in the workers' compensation settlement agreement otherwise prohibit the estate's collection of the tort judgment? The court concluded that, given the Florida Supreme Court's resolution of the certified issues, the district court correctly determined that the workers' compensation exclusion in Part II of the policy barred Zenith's coverage of the tort judgment against Lawns. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Zenith. View "Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co." on Justia Law