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

This appeal and cross-appeal arose from a jury verdict and award of damages and injunctive relief in favor of plaintiffs, Doctors Gowski and Zachariah, in their discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment suit against the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). At issue was whether this circuit recognized a retaliatory hostile work environment claim and, if so, whether the evidence in this case was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and damages award. The court concluded that a retaliatory hostile work environment was a viable claim and, after a thorough review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, the remittur, the vacatur of the lost-wages award, and the award of attorneys' fees. The court also affirmed in part the grant of injunctive relief, but remanded in part the injunctive award with instructions for the district court to strike the award as it pertained to the removal of the doctors' disciplinary files and the prevention of their use in any further disciplinary action; the order that the doctors be appointed to additional hospital committees; the order that Dr. Gowski be placed back on the rotation for duty assignments and be permitted to obtain the necessary credentials and privileges to do so; and the order that Dr. Zachariah be permitted to continue her research. View "Gowski, M.D., et al. v. Peake" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs claimed that the fiduciaries of their retirement plan violated the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., in ways that damaged their efforts to stockpile savings for their winter years. The court held that because plaintiffs have not pleaded facts establishing that defendants abused their discretion by following the Plan's directions, they have not stated a valid claim for breach of the duty of prudence. The court also held that plaintiffs have failed to state a viable breach of loyalty claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' third and last amended complaint. View "Lanfear, et al. v. Home Depot, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Sheriff Gee, in his official capacity, after she was transferred from her data processing telecommunications technician position to the Help Desk when she informed the sheriff's office, her employer, that she was pregnant. Plaintiff asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(k), and under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Fla. Stat. 760.01 et seq. A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and awarded her $80,000 in back pay and $10,000 for emotional distress. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict; in view of the sheriff's concession that he did not plead or argue the affirmative defense under the doctrine of after-acquired evidence and that there was no evidence that plaintiff engaged in wrongdoing, the district court erred in applying the doctrine to vacate the award of back pay; and the district court did not err in its response to a question from the jury. View "Holland v. Gee" on Justia Law

The United States brought an action against ADMH, claiming that ADMH violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301 et seq., when it failed to rehire longtime employee Roy Hamilton after his service in Iraq with the Alabama National Guard. The district court denied ADMH's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity and found that ADMH had violated USERRA by not immediately rehiring Hamilton after his return from Iraq. The court held that ADMH was not entitled to sovereign immunity, and that the district court did not err in finding that ADMH violated USERRA and was required to pay money damages. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Ala. Dept. of Mental Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this action against defendants, alleging that all defendants violated her free exercise rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. Plaintiff also alleged that CSC violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims. The court held that plaintiff had not provided evidence that Dr. Chosewood, CDC's Director of Health and Safety, and Ms. Zerbe, the CDC project officer responsible for managing the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) contract, requested her removal from the EAP in retaliation of her free exercise rights. Because plaintiff failed to show that her constitutional right was violated, Dr. Chosewood and Ms. Zerbe were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that no reasonable juror could conclude that Dr. Chosewood and Ms. Zerbe's decision was based on plaintiff's religious objections to counseling clients in same-sex relationships, rather than the manner in which plaintiff handled a certain client's referral and their understanding that plaintiff would not alter her behavior in connection with future referrals. Because Dr. Chosewood and Ms. Zerbe did not violate plaintiff's statutory right under RFRA, they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court further held that plaintiff could not assert a Bivens action against CSC; because CSC did not burden plaintiff's religious rights by removing her from the EAP contract or by ultimately terminating her employment, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of CSC on her RFRA claim; and the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's Title VII claim against CSC. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Walden v. Centers for Disease Control, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner National Labor Relations Board (the Board or NLRB) sought enforcement of its order against Respondent Contemporary Cars, Inc. (Contemporary). In 2008, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the Union) filed a petition with the Board seeking certification as the representative of Mercedes-Benz service technicians employed at Contemporary. The Board held a hearing, determined the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate under two different theories, and directed that an election occur. Contemporary requested that the Board review the Regional Director’s decision regarding the bargaining unit. Despite only having two members, the Board summarily denied the request. Members of the bargaining unit voted in for representation by the Union, and the Regional Director certified the Union. To preserve its right to challenge the validity of the bargaining-unit determination in a court of appeals, Contemporary refused to bargain. The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board. Contemporary conceded the violation, and in 2009, the two-member Board issued an order finding Contemporary in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Contemporary filed a petition for review of the NLRB’s order with the federal district court. The NLRB cross-petitioned seeking enforcement. The circuit court granted Contemporary's motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in "New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB" (130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010)). In 2010, the NLRB issued an order setting aside its previous two-member decision to "take further action as appropriate." The original two members plus an obligatory third member issued a new order, again affirming the Regional Director's bargaining-unit decision. The NLRB subsequently filed a petition for enforcement of its order with the Eleventh Circuit. Upon review, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Contemporary's due process challenge raised on appeal of the 2010 NLRB order. Furthermore, Contemporary did not meet its burden of demonstrating the Board's determination lacked substantial evidentiary support. Therefore, the Court granted the NLRB's petition. View "NLRB v. Contemporary Cars, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a teacher, filed this action against defendants, a superintendent and principal, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. At issue was whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and whether plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims were barred by res judicata. The court held that plaintiff failed to present any precedent, and the court was aware of none, to suggest that a reasonable principal and superintendent armed with the knowledge they possessed, to include the unsatisfactory performance reviews, would know they could not recommend and/or adopt a recommendation to terminate plaintiff. Accordingly, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and the court need not address the res judicata issue. View "Sherrod v. Johnson; Sherrod v. Crutchfield" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Mardi Grad employee opposed to being unionized, sought to enjoin enforcement of a memorandum of agreement between Mardi Gras and Unite, a labor union. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because it found that the assistance promised in the agreement could not constitute a "thing of value." At issue was whether organizing assistance offered by an employer to a labor union could be a "thing of value" contemplated under section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. 186. Section 302 made it unlawful for an employer to give or for a union to receive any "thing of value," subject to limited exceptions. The court held that organizing assistance could be a thing of value that, if demanded or given as payment, could constitute a violation of section 302. Because the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint was based on a contrary conclusion, the court reversed the judgment.

Plaintiff's petition for rehearing was granted in part and denied in part. The court vacated and withdrew the previous opinion in this case and substituted the following opinion. At issue was whether an employer, who denied liability for nonpayment for overtime work, must pay attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), if the employer tendered the full amount of overtime pay claimed by an employee, and moved to dismiss on mootness grounds where the employee conceded that "the claim for overtime should be dismissed as moot." The court concluded that, under such circumstances, the dismissal of the employee's complaint, without an award of attorney's fees, was not erroneous to section 216(b) because the district court did not award judgment to the employee as the prevailing party.

Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which also operated as a petition for panel rehearing. The court granted the petition and vacated its earlier opinion. This appeal involved plaintiff's claim under 41 U.S.C. 1981, for racial discrimination based on Tyson Foods' failure to promote him to shift manager at its Gadsden, Alabama chicken processing plant. Plaintiff challenged the district court's judgment vacating the jury's punitive damages award. Tyson Foods challenged the district court's refusal to enter judgment in its favor based on the law of the case, the district court's denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law based on insufficient evidence of discrimination, a number of evidentiary rulings the court made, and the court's refusal to order remittitur of the jury's award of compensatory damages. The court addressed each issue and ultimately affirmed the judgment of the district court.