Recently in Employment Law Category

In an action challenging a bank's categorization of underwriters as administrative employees exempt from the Fair Labor Standard Act's overtime pay requirements, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where plaintiff's work was not related either to setting "management policies" nor to "general business operations" such as human relations or advertising, 29 C.F.R. section 541.2, but rather concerned the "production" of loans -- the fundamental service provided by the bank.

Read Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 08-4092

Appellate Information

Argued: May 12, 2008

Decided: November 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Lynch

Counsel

For Appellant:

J. Nelson Thomas, Dolin, Thomas & Solomon LLP, Rochester, NY

For Appellee:

Samuel Shaulson, Carrie A. Gonnell, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, NY

In the EEOC's appeal from a denial of its petition to enforce an administrative subpoena issued to UPS seeking information about how religious exemptions to UPS's Uniform and Personal Appearance Guidelines were handled nationwide, the order is reversed where the district court, in finding that national information was not relevant to the charges being investigated by the EEOC, applied too restrictive a standard of relevance.

Read EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 08-5348

Appellate Information

In an action seeking unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff, a Product Design Specialist, was outside the "professional exemption" to the FLSA's overtime requirements and 2) defendant's violation of the FLSA was willful.

Read Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., No. 08-5847

Appellate Information

Argued: September 9, 2009

Decided: November 12, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Jacobs

Counsel

For Appellant:

Jennifer B. Rubin, John M. Delehanty and Andrew Nathanson, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., New York, NY

For Appellee:

Michael J.D. Sweeney, Getman & Sweeney PLLC, New Paltz, NY

In a constitutional challenge to two amendments to the New York Workers' Compensation Law, the district court's judgment abstaining from the case is affirmed where Burford abstention was appropriate because federal court intervention would be disruptive of a carefully established state system, and might also yield inconsistent and therefore conflicting results.

Read Liberty Mut. ins. Co. v. Hurlbut, No. 09-1215

Appellate Information

Argued: June 22, 2009

Decided: November 4, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Miner

Counsel

For Appellants:

Mark F. Horning, Jeffrey M. Theodore, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Steven C. Wu, New York, NY

In a gender and age discrimination action by an employee of a university, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff failed to produce evidence of an express or implied contract to continue her employment.  However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) in the circumstances here, a non-renewal of an employment contract itself was an adverse employment action and the district court erred in requiring plaintiff to show the existence of an unofficial tenured position to satisfy the adverse action requirement; and 2) the circumstances surrounding the non-renewal of her contract gave rise to an inference of age or gender discrimination.

Read Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., No. 07-4567

Appellate Information

Argued: February 27, 2009

Decided: October 23, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bianco

Counsel

For Appellant:

David M. Marek, Jeffrey L. Liddle, Liddle and Robinson, LLP, New York, NY

For Appellees:

Wendy E. Tarlow, Nelson E. Roth, Valerie Cross Dorn and Norma W. Schwab, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

In an ERISA action claiming that defendant's benefit plan violated ERISA's minimum benefit accrual rules, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where the plan complied with ERISA's minimum benefit accrual rules, and defendant did not violate ERISA's section 204(h) notice requirements.

Read Lonecke v. Citigroup Pension Plan, No. 08-0459

Appellate Information

Argued: March 20, 2009

Decided: October 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Wesley

Counsel

For Appellants:

Myron D. Rumeld, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY

Lewis R. Clayton, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, New York, NY

For Appellees:

Edgar Pauk, Law Office of Edgar Pauk, Esq., Brooklyn, NY

Brad Nelson Friedman, Milberg LLP, New York, NY

In a First Amendment action alleging that a professor's union impermissibly charged plaintiff a pro rata share of expenses unrelated to the union's collective bargaining duties, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) a public-sector union's political activities aimed at securing a new contract may be chargeable to nonmembers if those activities are pertinent to the union's role as a collective bargaining representative; 2) nonmembers may be required to subsidize lobbying efforts undertaken by a "parent" union of the local public-sector union if the lobbying is related to collective bargaining and may ultimately inure to the benefit of local union members; 3) the district court erred in upholding the union's charges to nonmembers for (a) political activity undertaken to secure a new contract, (b) lobbying by the local union's state affiliate, (c) costs incurred to send union delegates to the state affiliate's annual convention, and (d) the salaries of the union's employees; 4) the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's challenge to the union's charges for media communications by its national affiliate; and 5) it erred in holding, sua sponte, that plaintiff will be required to arbitrate future claims against the union before filing suit.

Read Seidemann v. Bowen, No. 08-3922

Appellate Information

Argued: November 17, 2008

Decided: October 15, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Cabranes

Counsel

For Appellant:

Phineas E. Leahey and Todd R. Geremia, Jones Day, New York, NY

For Appellee:

James R. Sandner and Christopher M. Callagy, New York, NY

In an action alleging that defendant-employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating plaintiff's employment rather than reasonably accommodating her disability, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to provide evidence that, with aid of a reasonable accommodation, she was qualified for either her pre-disability position or a suitable vacant position to which she could have been reassigned; and 2) in the absence of such evidence, an employer's failure to engage in an interactive process intended to discover an accommodation suitable to both parties is immaterial.

Read McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., No. 07-5689

Appellate Information

Argued: March 9, 2009

Decided: October 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Livingston

Counsel

For Appellant:

W. Martyn Philpot, Jr., Law Office of W. Martyn Philpot, Jr., LLC, New Haven, CT

For Appellee:

Michael J. Soltis, Jackson Lewis LLP, Stamford, CT

In an ERISA action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty based on changes to an employee benefit plan, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where oral promises cannot vary the terms of a written ERISA plan.

Read Ladouceur v. Credit Lyonnais, No. 07-4040

Appellate Information

Argued: April 7, 2009

Decided: September 30, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Jacobs

Counsel

For Appellant:

Pearl Zuchlewski, Kraus & Zuchlewski LLP, New York, NY

For Appellees:

Tracey A. Tiska, Hogan & Hartson LLP, New York, NY

In a Railway Labor Act (RLA) action challenging the validity of a Restructuring Participation Agreement reached between plaintiff flight attendants' former employer and their union, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the relevant RLA provisions, 45 U.S.C. section 152, First and Seventh, do not provide a private cause of action; 2) the RLA preempted plaintiffs' state law claims; and 3) plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence of a material factual dispute on their fair representation claim to defeat summary judgment.

Read Lindsay v. Ass'n. of Prof'l. Flight Attendants, No. 08-4122

Appellate Information

Argued: July 6, 2009

Decided: September 21, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Raggi

Counsel

For Appellants:

Emily M. Bass, Brooklyn, NY

Steven M. Nachman, New York, NY

For Appellees:

Stephen B. Moldof, Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, New York, NY

Michael L. Winston, Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, New York, NY