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

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Estate, challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Zenith on the Estate's breach of the insurance contract claim. After review and oral argument, the court certified questions to the Florida Supreme Court: (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? (3) If the estate's claim was 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? View "Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint that her former employer discriminated against her after she became pregnant. At issue was whether direct estoppel barred a claim of pregnancy discrimination under state law when a jury found at trial that plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action regarding her claim of retaliation for exercising her right to maternity leave under federal law. The court concluded that the jury verdict against plaintiff's claim of retaliation estopped plaintiff from relitigating the common issue of whether she suffered an adverse employment action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against plaintiff's claim of pregnancy discrimination. View "DuChateau v. Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc." on Justia Law

Koch Foods appealed the final decision and order issued by the Administrative Review Board (ARB) of the Department of Labor (DOL), in which the ARB determined that Koch Foods had violated the whistleblower protection provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), 49 U.S.C. 31105(a)(1)(B)(i), by firing its employee, respondent Timothy Bailey. Bailey argued that he was fired for refusing to drive a vehicle he believed was overweight in violation of state and federal law. After reviewing the plain language of the provision and its statutory context, as well as the relevant statutory history, the court held that the phrase "refuses to operate a vehicle because ... the operation violates a regulation, standard, or order," as used in section 31105(a)(1)(B)(i), referred only to circumstances in which operation would result in an actual violation of law. Accordingly, the court vacated the ARB's decision and remanded so that the ARB could evaluate whether the operation of Bailey's assigned vehicle would have resulted in an actual violation of a regulation, standard, or order related to commercial motor vehicle safety, health, or security. View "Koch Foods, LLC v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Labor, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., to recover unpaid overtime wages. The jury found in favor of plaintiffs and the district court determined that plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to their actual damages. Defendants subsequently appealed the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial. The court held that the district court was correct to deny defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the in pari delicto doctrine; the district court did not err in giving the jury instructions; the district court did not commit evidentiary errors; the evidence of plaintiffs' overtime hours was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and the district court did not err in denying defendants' Rule 50 motion; defendants failed to satisfy their burden of showing that a certain employee was unavailable as a witness and the district court did not err by excluding the CEO's testimony as hearsay; and the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding the amounts defendants were required to withhold for payroll taxes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lamonica, et al v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, Appliance Direct and its CEO, alleging that defendants retaliated against them for filing an overtime lawsuit, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219. Both parties subsequently appealed from the district court's judgment. The court held that reasonable jurors could differ as to whether the CEO was an employer under the requirements of the FLSA, but considering the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the district court properly denied his motions for judgment as a matter of law; the evidence was sufficient for a jury to award plaintiffs compensatory damages in the amount of $30,000 each, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the CEO's motions on this ground; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award liquidated damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Moore, et al v. Pak" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that his former employer discriminated against him on account of his age when it terminated his employment, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. The employer argued that the reason for plaintiff's discharge was due to a reduction in force (RIF), not his age, 71-years-old. After thorough review of the record with benefit of oral argument, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, concluding that no reasonable fact finder could find that the employer's decision was "but-for" his age and plaintiff had not established that the project manager acted as a mere cat's paw for the assistant project manager's discriminatory animus. View "Sims, Jr. v. MVM, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involved claims brought by cabin stewards against their employer, Celebrity Cruises, and against the Union (FIT) that represented them. Because the stewards were foreign employees involved in an internal wage dispute with a foreign ship, neither the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. 185, nor the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 159, applied to the stewards' challenges. Since their claims were dependent upon the protections of those acts, the district court properly dismissed their claims against Celebrity and FIT. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court in Appeal No. 10-13623. Because the stewards could have raised their Seaman's Wage Act, 46 U.S.C. 10313, claim in Lobo II but did not, the court affirmed the district court's order in Gomez as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court in Appeal No. 10-10406 View "Lobo, et al v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against her former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., after she was terminated. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer because plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reason for the termination - that plaintiff violated (or appeared to violate) the company's conduct policies - was pretextual. In this case, the corporate executive who terminated plaintiff later said that she was an exceptional employee who had done nothing wrong, had done everything right, and should not have been fired. The court held that such evidence, when combined with a prima facie case, created a jury question as to discrimination. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Kragor v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that her termination was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it was based on her candidacy. The court held that the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, did not require defendant to retain her political opponent after becoming superior court clerk for the county. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. View "Underwood v. Harkins, et al" on Justia Law

Lakeland appealed a decision of the NLRB finding Lakeland in violation of sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5), (1), for its refusal to bargain with the Union. The NLRB cross-appealed for enforcement. At issue was whether substantial record evidence supported the NLRB's determination that certain licensed practical nurses (LPNs) employed by Lakeland were "supervisors" within the meaning of section 2(11) of the Act. The court found unreasonable the NLRB's conclusion that the LPNs' involvement in certified nursing assistants (CNAs) coaching did not make them supervisors under the Act. The court also concluded that the NLRB's determination that the LPNs did not exercise independent judgment in assigning CNAs was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court granted Lakeland's petition for review and denied the NLRB's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Lakeland Health Care Associate v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law