Recently in Employment Law Category

Timing isn't everything. For example, a plaintiff is not guaranteed to prevail in a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) lawsuit simply because his FMLA leave and his termination date overlap.

Michael Sabourin sued the University of Utah, claiming, among other things, that it had violated the FMLA by deciding to eliminate his position and then firing him for cause while he was on leave for childcare in June 2006. Though the timing of the University's decision may have seemed suspect, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that Sabourin's termination was based on insubordination, not FMLA retaliation.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the San Juan Coal Company in Farmington, N.M. is bound by the terms of an arbitration ruling with the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), the union that represents mine workers at the company's Farmington, N.M. coal mine.

San Juan and the IUOE have a collective bargaining agreement detailing the terms of the mine workers' employment. The collective bargaining agreement stipulated that an employee who works beyond his scheduled hours for a particular day will be paid 1.5 times the normal rate, and an employee required to work for two hours after the end of his shift will be paid for an additional half-hour at 1.5 times his normal rate.

Migraines may be painful, but employers may not be required to make special accommodations for migraine-plagued employees under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Last month, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that migraines may satisfy the impairment prong of an ADA claim, but they do not automatically trigger ADA disability protections.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision siding with aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) this week, finding that a fired employee’s discrimination and retaliation claims lacked merit to proceed to trial.

The employee, Denice Twigg, was employed by HBC from April 2, 1997, to April 7, 2008, where she worked in HBC’s Technical Manual Distribution Center (TMDC) as a Media Production Specialist.

The Americans with Disabilities Act was up at issue before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently.

In EEOC v. C.R. England, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling granting a motion for summary judgment on the issue that medical information voluntarily disclosed by an employee was not protected by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Employment Contract Action

In DeFranco v. Storage Tech. Corp., No. 08-1095, an action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel based on alleged breaches of an employment agreement, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants where 1) common law contract principles allowed for the formation of contracts without the signatures of the parties bound by them, and thus the written agreement making plaintiff an at-will employee bound defendant; and 2) because plaintiff could not show that he provided special consideration to defendant in exchange for defendant's alleged promise to provide permanent employment, no enforceable contract providing for anything other than employment at will existed.

Deutsch v. Jordan, No. 09-8042, involved an action bringing federal civil-rights and state-law claims against the City of Laramie, Wyoming, based on plaintiff's termination as police chief.  The court affirmed in part the denial of summary judgment for defendant, holding that 1) not only was speech alleging that the police chief misused city funds ordinarily speech on a matter of public concern, but so, too, was speech defending against such allegations; and 2) the court of appeals could not rule in defendant's favor without reversing the district court's determination that there was a factual dispute regarding her state of mind.

In Flitton v. Primary Res. Mortgage, Inc. No. 09-4108, the court affirmed the district court's order awarding plaintiff $367,689.00 in attorney's fees as a prevailing party in a Title VII lawsuit, holding that 1) the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's successful retaliation claim and her unsuccessful discrimination and punitive damages claims were interrelated; 2) the district court's assessment of her overall level of success was not an abuse of discretion; and 3) the district court conducted a thorough review of plaintiff's attorneys' billing entries and reduced the fee award based on the inadequacy of eleven specific entries.

Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, No. 09-5089, concerned an action against a Roman Catholic diocese alleging gender and age discrimination.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants, on the ground that Title VII's ministerial exception barred plaintiffs' claims because plaintiff's position was not limited to a merely administrative role, but it also involved responsibilities that furthered the core of the spiritual mission of the diocese.

As the court wrote:  "In this case we consider whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa on a former employee's federal employment law claims, based on the ministerial exception to Title VII. After considering the parties' arguments and the evidence in the record before us, we hold that the district court correctly dismissed the claims."

Related Resources

• Full Text of Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, No. 09-5089

In re: Trout, No. 09-1332, concerned a bankruptcy trustee's appeal from a decision of the bankruptcy appellate panel affirming the bankruptcy court's determination that, having successfully avoided a preferential vehicle lien under 11 U.S.C. section 547, the trustee was not entitled to a money judgment equal to the value of the avoided liens under section 550(a).  The court of appeals affirmed, on the ground that the bankruptcy estate had been sufficiently returned to its pre-transfer status by avoiding the preferential lien at issue and stepping into the lien priority of the avoided creditor under 11 U.S.C. section 551.

Narotzky v. Natrona Cty. Mem. Hosp. Bd. of Trustees, No. 09-8053, involved an action by doctors against their former hospital employer, stating a procedural due process claim based on a theory of constructive discharge and a claim based on the warrantless search of plaintiffs' lockers.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, on the ground that no constructive discharge occurred and that the search was reasonable, given the context and circumstances.

Thomas v. Parker, No. 09-6203, concerned an action challenging various conditions of plaintiff's confinement at the James Crabtree Correctional Center (JCCC), a prison in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC).  The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action, on the grounds that 1) the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he did not properly complete all three required written steps; 2) plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to establish fraud on the court because, at most, they showed the nondisclosure of evidence or the alteration of evidence by a party, with no showing of attorney involvement; and 3) it is difficult to see how there could be actionable fraud on the court if the district court had before it the correct documents when it made its final decision.

In US v. Hasan, No. 08-5137, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's perjury convictions in part, on the ground that, although the prosecutor could have done more to clarify, the district court would not have clearly or obviously erred in concluding that a reasonable jury could find that the questions were not the cause of defendant's inconsistent answers.  However, the court vacated in part on the ground that the district court needed to determine in the first instance whether defendant spoke primarily a language other than the English language under the proper legal standard.

Related Resources

• Full Text of In re: Trout, No. 09-1332
• Full Text of Thomas v. Parker, No. 09-6203
• Full Text of US v. Hasan, No. 08-5137
• 11 U.S.C. section 547