CLEVELAND — The parties in a class suit over the misclassification of door-to-door salespeople that ended with a jury finding for the plaintiffs on the issue of liability for unpaid wages must accept surveys regarding the hours the affected employees worked during the overtime pay period that were filed up to a month after the April 4 deadline, an Ohio federal judge ruled Aug. 10 (Davina Hurt, et al. v. Commerce Energy, Inc., et al., No. 12-758, N.D. Ohio, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128850).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 14 upheld a trial court’s summary judgment ruling for a chain of cosmetology schools sued by a proposed class of students seeking wages for time spent in the schools’ salons (Venitia Hollins v. Regency Corporation, et al., No. 15-3607, 7th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15076).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on Aug. 9 ruled that a class lawsuit by retail “key carrier” employees who claim that they were denied rest and meal breaks because they were always on call belongs in state court because the defendant failed to meet its heightened burden of proving that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million (Eric Farley, et al. v. Dolgen California LLC, et al., No. 16-2501, E.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126540).
PASADENA, Calif. — An employee who sued his employer following a data breach must arbitrate his claims but may proceed representing a class because the agreement he signed doesn’t bar class arbitration, a split Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Aug. 3 (Frank Varela, et al. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., et al., No. 16-56085, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14284).
TAMPA, Fla. — A transgender woman’s allegations that her employer denied her the opportunity for promotions, partially withheld her wages due and denied medically necessary care due to her transgender status are covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in a July 24 letter of determination.
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A fire captain who was found to have harassed women and created a hostile work environment during the latter part of his tenure was properly denied the entire amount of his pension benefits, a Maryland Court of Special Appeals panel ruled July 27, affirming a determination that county code did not permit an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) award of partial benefits (Theodore Priester, Jr. v. Board of Appeals of Baltimore County, No. 1030, Md. Spec. App., 2017 Md. App. LEXIS 760).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Surveillance technicians employed by two Las Vegas casinos qualify as “guards” under Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and may be represented only by an all-guard union, a divided District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled July 18 (Bellagio, LLC, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 16-1191, D.C. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12844).
ATLANTA — An arbitration agreement signed by an employee after he already filed a class complaint against his employer over a background check is valid and prevents the lawsuit from proceeding, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 7 (William Jones, et al. v. Waffle House, Inc., et al., No. 16-15574, 11th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14497).
ATLANTA — An employee may not proceed with her race and disability bias claims because the issuance of a second notice of right to sue failed to revive the limitations period and the employee failed to show that she is entitled to equitable tolling, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled July 18 (Tyquisha M. Stamper v. Duval County School Board, No. 15-11788, 11th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12894).
NEW YORK — a New York federal judge on Aug. 4 granted a motion to dismiss age discrimination claims against a hotel group, saying that the plaintiff failed to state any facts that would support an argument that the defendant acted with discriminatory intent (Gregory Rooney v. VHM LLC, et al., No. 16-cv-9960, S.D. N.Y., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124446).
CINCINNATI — Two merged airlines must accept or submit to expedited grievance arbitration a pilots seniority list agreed to by the union and representatives for the two groups of pilots, a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled July 17, adding that the matter is a “major” dispute under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) (Flight Options, LLC, et al. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al., No. 16-3606, 6th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12728).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) provides a 30-day limit for filing a notice of appeal that is just as “jurisdictional” as all other aspects of Rule 4 and is mandatory and “unalterable,” two employers argue in their July 31 respondents brief filed in an age discrimination suit before the U.S. Supreme Court, adding that even if the rule was “otherwise open to equitable exceptions, the ‘unique circumstances’ doctrine would not apply” (Charmaine Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, et al., No. 16-658, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A split District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 4 denied enforcement of a National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) finding that CNN America Inc. was a joint employer of technicians hired by a contractor because the NLRB failed to explain its reasoning, but enforced the NLRB’s ruling that CNN was a successor employer and must bargain with the technicians’ union (National Labor Relations Board v. CNN America, Inc., et al., No. 15-1112, D.C. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14342).
PASADENA, Calif. — Two workers who claimed that their employer, Nordstrom Inc., violated California law failed to show that they were forced to work more than six consecutive days in any one work week, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Aug. 3 (Christopher Mendoza, et al. v. Nordstrom Inc., Nos. 12-57130 and 12-57144, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14249).
PHILADELPHIA — A trial court’s treatment of a motion to enforce in a racial bias suit that was reviewed by a federal magistrate judge constituted a “significant procedural defect” under the Federal Magistrates Act, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 2, vacating the trial court’s ruling for the employer (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. City of Long Branch, No. 16-2514, 3rd Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14151).
CHICAGO — Chicago police officers who filed a collective action claiming that they were denied pay for time spent checking their electronic devices failed to show that they requested such payment and were denied it, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 3, upholding a trial court’s ruling for the city (Jeffrey Allen, et al. v. City of Chicago, No. 16-1029, 7th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14230).
NEW ORLEANS — A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 4 reversed the dismissal of two plaintiffs in an overtime suit, finding that the applicability of the fluctuating workweek method must be decided at trial as alternating hours, as claimed by the plaintiffs, does not necessarily qualify as “fluctuating” as the term is used in the method (Nathan Hills, III, et al. v. Entergy Operations, Incorporated, No. 16-30924, 5th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14387).
ATLANTA — Unnamed plaintiffs in a suit stemming from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), that alleged gender discrimination and sought certification of regional classes, filed an untimely appeal of the dismissal of class claims, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Aug. 3, adding that their appeal of the order denying their motion to intervene is moot (Penelope Morris, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 15-15260, 11th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14261).
SAN FRANCISCO — The question of whether tribal courts have jurisdiction over an employment dispute involving two public schools located on tribal land is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to an amended Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion filed Aug. 3 and a previous order staying judgment pending resolution of a petition for writ of certiorari (Window Rock Unified School District, et al. v. Ann Reeves, et al., Nos. 13-16278, 13-16259, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14254).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Calling a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on a dispute between a retailer and its employees’ union “a complete failure to reasonably reflect upon the information contained in the record and grapple with contrary evidence,” a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Aug. 1 that the NLRB must reconsider the whole dispute after acting more like “an advocate than an adjudicator” (Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 15-1135, D.C. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13910).