NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 23 found that there were numerous disputes of material fact and partially reversed a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in a multifaceted dispute between a travel company and a former employee and her husband who opened a travel company franchise (Karen D’Onofrio v. Vacation Publications, Incorporated v. Michael D’Onofrio, No. 16-20628, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 10353).
LOS ANGELES — After finding that an irreparable breakdown has occurred between counsel and employers named in an action filed by former employees who assert claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), fraud and other claims, a California federal judge on April 24 granted the employer’s counsel’s request to withdraw from the case (Graham Farrar, et al. v. Cupcake Digital Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-04677, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69000).
HONOLULU — A seaman who was injured when the boat he was working on exploded and can no longer work may proceed with his claims against the boat, despite a bankruptcy court’s sale of the boat free and clear of the seaman’s lien, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled in an opinion that was amended April 19 (Chad Barry Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC, et al., No. 16-15023, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9891).
NEWARK, N.J. — A former UBS Financial Services Inc. employee cannot claim that he was retaliated against in violation of the anti-retaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act because the former employee failed to show that he reported UBS’s alleged securities law violation to the Securities and Exchange Commission before his termination from the company, a federal judge ruled April 19 in granting UBS’s motion to dismiss (Craig D. Price v. UBS Financial Services Inc., No. 17-1882, D. N.J., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66200).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 17 declined to appoint counsel to a former WMATA Metro Transit Police Department probationary officer suing for age, national origin and perceived sexual orientation discrimination, ruling that the appellant has failed to demonstrate “sufficient likelihood of success on the merits” (Clifton Stanley Diaz, Jr. v. WMATA Metro Transit Police, No. 17-7055, D.C. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9925).
CHICAGO — A company’s restrictive covenant in an employment agreement with a former employee the company sued for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets is overly broad and would create and undue hardship on the former employee if it were enforced, a federal judge in Illinois ruled April 17 in granting a motion to dismiss (Medix Staffing Solutions Inc. v. Daniel Dumrauf, No. 17-6648, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64813).
LOS ANGELES — A California appeals panel on April 16 ruled that a class of workers who sued a staffing agency for wage violations and settled those claims may not now succeed on identical claims against the company where they had been placed to work (Andrew Castillo, et al. v. Glenair, Inc., No. B278239, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 2, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 338).
NEW YORK — A New York federal magistrate judge on April 13 granted final approval of a $3.6 million settlement to be paid to “tipped workers” who have been employed by Rosa Mexicano restaurants around the county (Edwin Suarez, et al. v. Rosa Mexicano Brands Inc., et al., No. 16-5464, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63562).
SAN FRANCISCO — The lead plaintiff in a class complaint in a California federal court accusing Pepsico Inc., Frito-Lay Inc. and a background check company of violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) moved April 12 for preliminary approval of a $2.4 million settlement reached with Frito-Lay (Marcus Chism, et al. v. Pepsico, Inc., et al., No. 17-152, N.D. Calif.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A former door-to-door salesman who brought a wage class complaint against his former employer in a California state court failed to show that the conduct of the only California entity named as a defendant formed a “significant” basis for the claims he asserted, a California federal judge ruled April 12 denying a motion to remand (Daniel Evangelista v. Just Energy Marketing Corp., et al., No. 17-2270, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62381).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A Connecticut federal judge on April 9 denied a motion to reconsider his March 31 decision granting in part a motion to dismiss filed by a cleaning company franchisor in a class complaint over its deductions for fees (Simon Mujo, et al. v. Jani-King International, Inc., et al., No. 16-1990, D. Conn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62059).
CINCINNATI — A part-time police officer whose employer chose a younger officer when a full-time position became available failed to show that it was his age rather than his work record that caused him not to be selected, a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 2 (Daniel C. Rosecrans v. Village of Wellington, et al., No. 17-3364, 6th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8366).
PHILADELPHIA — In a case where an ophthalmologist suspected age bias at the time his contract was terminated and believed bias was confirmed months later when his younger colleague secured the contract, there can be no tolling during that time as the doctor failed to show that there was deception that caused him to file his claims nearly a year after his termination, the Third Circuit U.S. Court Appeals ruled March 19 (Harold P. Koller, et al. v. Abington Memorial Hospital, No. 17-2094, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 6796).
CHICAGO — Three Chicago aviation security officers filed a class complaint on April 11 in an Illinois federal court, alleging that their constitutional rights were violated when, following an incident on a United Airlines flight in which a passenger was dragged off a plane, they were retroactively stripped of their status as bona-fide law enforcement officers (LEOs) (Keia Yates, et al. v. State of Illinois, et al., No. 18-2613, N.D. Ill.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on March 20 dismissed a gender discrimination case with prejudice after the three female partners who sued Chadbourne & Parke LLP and its successor firm, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, reached a settlement of more than $3 million settlement to end their individual claims for violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) (Kerrie L. Campbell, et al. v. Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, et al., No. 16-6832, S.D. N.Y.).
PHILADELPHIA — A New Jersey federal court erred when it upheld a jury’s determination that the denial of a training class for a New Jersey county correctional sergeant amounted to an adverse action, a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 5, reversing the finding of liability against the county and a county employee (Helen Ford v. County of Hudson, et al., Nos. 17-1805, 17-1806 and 17-1819, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8637).
ATLANTA — A flight attendant who alleges that she was investigated for misusing a companion fare benefit and ultimately terminated all due to her age may proceed with her discrimination claim because she does not need to establish a prima facie age bias case to survive a dismissal motion, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 9 (Patricia Buchanan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 17-13452, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9094).
PHILADELPHIA — Drivers working for Uber Technologies Inc.’s car service who filed a wage-and-hour class complaint failed to show that they are employees under the factors established in Donovan v. DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., 757 F.2d 1376 (3d Cir. 1985), a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled April 11, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Ali Razak, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 16-573, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61230).
PHOENIX — A Scottsdale, Ariz., wine bar has agreed to pay $100,000 to end a complaint by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for sexual harassment and retaliation, the EEOC announced in an April 2 press release (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Scottsdale Wine Café LLC, No. 17-182, D. Ariz.).
ATLANTA — A flight attendant who left her job following a permanent injury because she believed that she had been able to retire, but later found out that her departure had been classified as a resignation, failed to provide a sufficient pro se complaint to proceed with claims of disability discrimination, retaliation and interference with her retiree benefits, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 4, affirming a trial court’s decision (Burdette Lowe v. Delta Air Lines Inc., No. 17-13579, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8763).