CINCINNATI — A supervisor formerly employed by a Michelin company franchisee failed to show that he was not exempt from receiving overtime wages or that his H-1B visa application was equivalent to an employment contract, a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Aug. 14, upholding a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the employer (Carlos Humberto Perez Mosquera v. MTI Retreading Company, No. 17-2366, 6th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22462).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The appeal of a case over the firing of a gay skydiving instructor and the much-debated reach of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it comes to sexual orientation bias should be denied, the estate of the instructor tells the U.S. Supreme Court in an Aug. 16 opposition brief, as one of the petitioners faces no liability under Title VII and the other is now a defunct corporation (Altitude Express, Inc., et al. v. Melissa Zarda, et al., No. 17-1623, U.S. Sup.).
DETROIT — A class suit accusing FCA US LLC of using an evaluation process that discriminates against employees who are 55 and older may proceed, a Michigan federal judge ruled Aug. 6, granting a dismissal motion only as to the individual claims by one of four named plaintiffs and rejecting the employer’s argument that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not permit a class definition that excludes employees aged 40 to 54 (Dan Cerjanec, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, No. 17-10619, E.D. Mich., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131434).
SAN ANTONIO — A Texas federal judge on Aug. 13 signed off on a consent decree jointly filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Murphy Oil USA Inc. stipulating that the employer will pay a former store manager $100,000 to end disability bias and retaliation claims (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 16-48, W.D. Texas).
PORTLAND, Ore. — A class complaint filed Aug. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon by two former employees accuses Nike Inc. of “devalu[ing]” and “demean[ing]” female employees by paying them less than their male counterparts and passing them over for promotions (Kelly Cahill, et al. v. Nike, Inc., No. 18-1477, D. Ore.).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A California federal judge on Aug. 8 refused to remand a former employee’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and wage-related causes of action to a state court, holding that the federal amount-in-controversy requirement of $5 million was met (Ricardo Vergel De Dios v. Gerard Roof Products, LLC, et al., No. 18-01163, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134689).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A former employee accusing his employer and its retirement plan investment committee of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by charging 401(k) plan participants excessive fees and engaging in prohibited transactions argues in an Aug. 8 motion for partial summary judgment that judgment should be entered in his favor on the prohibited transactions claims because he met his burden of proving that the defendants engaged in prohibited transactions (Marlon H. Cryer, et al. v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., No. 16-4265, N.D. Calif.).
PASADENA, Calif. — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 30 upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit by an employer and industry advancement fund (IAF) challenging a California law amendment requiring contractors working on public work projects to obtain employees’ permission to take wage credits for IAF contributions (Interpipe Contracting, Inc., et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al., Nos. 17-55248 and 17-55263, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20990).
RICHMOND, Va. — A Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 13 upheld a trial court’s decision that a Maryland state attorney is protected by absolute immunity from a police officer’s racial discrimination and retaliation claims and reversed the trial court’s decision that the officer could proceed with a retaliation claim against Maryland for failure to state a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Franklin Savage, et al. v. Maryland, et al., No. 17-1636, 4th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19219).
PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals entered judgment on July 25 vacating a district court’s summary judgment ruling for a Pennsylvania county and its employee accused of sexually harassing a subordinate; the appellate panel in a July 3 opinion ruled that the matter should be heard by a jury (Sheri Minarsky v. Susquehanna County, et al., No. 17-2646, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18189).
PASADENA, Calif. — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling that the National Labor Relations Board reasonably found that an Indian tribe violated the law by disciplining workers for handing out union flyers stands after the court on Aug. 7 denied the tribe’s petition for rehearing en banc (Casino Pauma v. National Labor Relations Board, et al., National Labor Relations Board v. Casino Pauma, Nos. 16-70397, 16-70756, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21974).
PASADENA, Calif. — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 3 upheld a ruling for linguists suing over being forced to take polygraph tests to keep their jobs and also affirmed a finding that their private employer was 60 percent responsible while the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was 40 percent responsible (Francisco Bates, et al. v. Metropolitan Interpreters and Translators, Inc., Nos. 15-56647 and 15-56658, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21738).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An employer’s statements about halting pay raises and gifts if the employees unionized violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but the actual suspension of those following the union election was not shown to have violated the NLRA, a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Aug. 3 (Advanced Life Systems Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 16-1405, D.C. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21529).
CINCINNATI — A Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 7 upheld a jury’s verdict for a retail store employee fired for violating company policy by consuming orange juice from the store’s cooler during a medical episode and then paying for it after, finding that the jury permissibly determined that the employer “discriminate[d] . . . on the basis of disability” (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 17-6278, 6th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21924).
ATLANTA — A truck driver who was moved off a local but unpredictable route after he requested Sundays off to attend church failed to show that his religious practices were not properly accommodated or that he suffered religious bias or retaliation, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled July 27 (Bobby Walker, Jr. v. Indian River Transport Co., No. 17-10501, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20878).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A former nonexempt employee on Aug. 2 sued a technology services company in a California court, asserting claims for violation of the California labor code and California’s unfair competition law (UCL), seeking unpaid wages (Maria G. Villasenor v. Solugenix Corp., No. 2018-01009771, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 3 withdrew its June 29 opinion in a collective wage action by valets and issued a new opinion that the employer was improperly granted summary judgment because a jury could find that the valet tickets used by the plaintiffs constituted “materials” under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) “handling clause” (Flor Andrea Rodriguez Asalde, et al. v. First Class Parking Systems LLC, et al., No. 16-16814, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21586).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — All of the National Labor Relations Board’s administrative law judges (ALJs) were validly appointed under the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution, a unanimous NLRB ruled in a two-page order on Aug. 6, citing the decision in Lucia v. SEC (WestRock Services Inc. and Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 197-M, No. 10-CA-195617, NLRB).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A California federal magistrate judge on July 26 ordered a defendant in an employment class action to turn over log-in/log-out records to the plaintiff and to make good on its promise to turn over job descriptions (Gabriela Ortolani v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., No. 17-1462, C.D. Calif., Eastern Div., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125522).
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 13 vacated a trial court’s dismissal of an employee’s lawsuit alleging wrongful termination and bias and remanded for the district court to decide whether the employee’s filing of a charge with the commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Department of Labor could be considered as constructively filing claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Garabed O. Mirzoian v. Michael N. El-Rahi, et al., No. 18-15367, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19289).