Recently in Employment Law Category

In plaintiffs' class action suit against the defendant-union for violating the Driver's Privacy Protection Act in obtaining their personal information in the  union's efforts to unionize CINTAS, the largest domestic employer in the industrial laundry industry, district court's order denying a motion by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW)to modify a protective order that restricts access to certain records is affirmed as NRTW lack standing to request modification of the protective order because the records are not judicial records.                

Read Pichler v. Unite, No. 08-2354

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Civ. No. 2-04-cv-02841)  

District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell

Opinion Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Before:  McKee and Stapleton, Circuit Judges, and Irenas, Senior District Judge

Opinion by McKee,  Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  William L. Messenger, William J. Young, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

Counsel for Appellee:   Lawrence T. Hoyle, Arlene Fickler, Hoyle Fickler Herschel & Mathes

In Labor Secretary's enforcement action under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. section 401, against Local 234 of the Transit Workers Union, district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where: 1) because a union member's post-election protest was a valid exercise of an available remedy, his subsequent administrative complaint to the Secretary was timely; and 2) Secretary's LMRDA enforcement action based on that administrative complaint is judicially sound. 

Read Solis v. Local 234, Transp. Workers Union, No. 09-1143

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 08-cv-1957)  

District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis

Opinion Filed November 2, 2009

Judges

Before:  Barry, Fisher and Jordan, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Jordan, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Michael P. Abate, Michael F. Hertz, Laurie Magid, Thomas M. Bondy, Christopher C. Fonzone, Michael S. Blume, Virginia A. Gibson, U.S. Department of Justice

Counsel for Appellee:  Bruce Bodner, Kaufman, Coren & Ress, PC; Claiborne S. Newlin, Meranze & Katz

In an admiralty case involving shipowner's duty to pay maintenance to a seaman, district court's award of declaratory judgment in favor of the seaman-defendant is affirmed where: 1) commuter seamen enjoy the same right to maintenance as their deep water counterparts; 2) the long-term disability payments do not offset the amount of maintenance owed which is a duty that is independent of the shipowner's contractual obligations; 3) receipt of social security benefits did not relieve the shipowner of its maintenance obligation; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest award to compensate defendant for losses stemming from plaintiff's tardy discharge of its duty; and 5) district court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's claim for consequential damages.     

Read Delaware River & Bay Auth. v. Kopacz, No. 08-4029

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 07-Cv-00008)  

District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson

Opinion Filed September 25, 2009

Judges

Before: Rendell, Alarcon, and Stapleton, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Rendell, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Mary E. Reeves, Donna Adelsberger & Associates

Counsel for Appellee: E. Alfred Smith, E. Alfred Smith & Associates

In plaintiff's case against her former employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and for retaliation, summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer is affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) the record indicates that a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant-Nationwide had constructive notice of hours plaintiff worked from home and thus, she was eligible for FMLA leave for purposes of summary judgment; 2) the version of section 825.110 in effect at the time of plaintiff's dismissal was invalid;  3) firing an employee for a valid request for FMLA leave may constitute interference with the employee's FMLA rights as well as retaliation against the employee; and 4) because no reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff was fired because of her daughter's known disability, district court's summary judgment on her ADA claim is affirmed. 

Read Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 07-3796

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 05-CV-00944)  

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

Opinion Filed September 23, 2009

Judges

Before:  Scirica, Chief Judge, Fuentes and Hardiman, Circuit Judges 
Opinion by Hardiman, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Patricia C. Zucker, Daley Zucker Meilton Miner & Gingrich

Counsel for Appellee: Donald R. Keller, Vladimir P. Belo, Bricker & Eckler

In plaintiff's employment discrimination action against Craftmatic under Title VII, section 1981 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), the district court's judgment is affirmed as to all of plaintiff's claims under Title VII and the PHRA as well as her section 1981 claims for a hostile work environment and retaliation as she was not an employee of Craftmatic, but rather an independent contractor.  District court's grant of Craftmatic's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's section 1981 claim that her termination was motivated by racial animus is reversed because there remain questions for a jury regarding whether Craftmatic would have terminated plaintiff's contract absent consideration of her race.     

Read Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., No. 08-2713

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-07-cv-00859)
District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster

Opinion Filed September 11, 2009

Judges

Before:  Sloviter, Ambro, and Jordan, Circuit Judges 

Opinion by: Sloviter, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Rufus A. Jennings, Timothy M. Kolman, Timothy M. Kolman & Associates

Counsel for Appellee: William G. Merchant, Hilary W. Taylor, Papernick & Gefsky

In plaintiff's gender and employment discrimination action alleging pay disparity against County-employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, district court's judgment that the Title VII claim is untimely as to paychecks plaintiff received after June 20, 2006, is reversed and remanded in light of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, where a failure to answer a request for a raise qualifies as a compensation decision because the result is the same as if the request had been explicitly denied.      

Read Mikula v. Allegheny County of Pennsylvania, No. 07-4023

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania(D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-1630)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab

Opinion Filed September 10, 2009

Judges

Before:  Barry, Smith, and Garth, Circuit Judges 
Per Curium Opinion

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Dina R. Lassow of National Women's Law Center 

Counsel for Appellee: Caroline P. Liebenguth, Office of Allegheny County Law Department. 

In a case involving an agreement by a union to indemnify and hold harmless an employer for the employer's withdrawal liability to a pension plan under ERISA and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act of 1980 (MPPAA), the existence of a union contract is not a jurisdictional requirement under section 301, and the case is ripe for adjudication. The district court's judgment is vacated and remanded where there are not enough "definite indications" of public policy in ERISA or the MPPAA to preclude an indemnification agreement between an employer and a third party for the employer's withdrawal liability, where the employer agrees that it will always remain primarily liable for the liability.      

Read Pittsburgh Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'r, Local Union No. 66, No. 07-3938

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Civil No. 07-cv-00092)

District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lnacaster

Argued September 29, 2008
Opinion Filed September 4, 2009

Judges

Before: Fisher, CHagares, and Hardiman, Circuit Judges 
Opinion by Circuit Judge Chagares

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  James P. Thomas, Richard I. Thomas, Pepper Hamilton LLP 

Counsel for Appellee:  Joshua M. Blook, Joshua M. Bloom and Associates, P.C.

In plaintiffs' action against their former employer for breach of fiduciary duty involving elimination of a preexisting retiree medical benefits plan, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court correctly concluded that twelve of the fourteen plaintiffs could prevail on their breach of fiduciary claims as the facts demonstrate that defendant breached the duty by both misrepresenting and inadequately disclosing material information regarding retiree medical benefits on which the twelve plaintiffs relied to their detriment; 2)  remedies ordered by the district court were carefully prescribed and are consistent with both the statutory language of ERISA and applicable case law; 3) district court did not err in refusing to order retrospective monetary relief as it is not an appropriate equitable remedy under ERISA; and 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees.     

Read In re: Unisys Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits ERISA Litig., No. 07-3369

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C.No. 03-cv-03924)

District Judge: Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman

Argued April 22, 2009
Opinion Filed September 2, 2009

Judges

Before:  SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

 
Opinion by Circuit Judge Fisher

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Joseph J. Costello, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Joseph A. Teklits

Counsel for Appellee: Joseph A. Golden, Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Rivers & Golden, Charles Gottlieb, Gottlieb & Goren, Scott M. Lempert, Alan M. Sandals, Clayton H. Thomas, Jr., Clayton H. Thomas & Associates