Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Kheloud Allos filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Poway Unified School District (PUSD), alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Labor Code. Allos claimed that PUSD's refusal to allow her to work exclusively from home during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in an interactive process, associational discrimination, and retaliation. She also alleged that PUSD failed to maintain a safe and healthy workplace and retaliated against her in violation of the Labor Code.The Superior Court of San Diego County granted PUSD's motion for summary judgment, finding that Allos's claims were barred by Government Code section 855.4, which provides immunity to public entities for decisions related to preventing disease or controlling its spread. The court also found that Allos failed to establish a triable issue of fact regarding her disability, the essential functions of her job, and whether she experienced an adverse employment action. The court noted that PUSD had engaged in multiple interactive meetings with Allos and provided various accommodations.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that section 855.4 provided immunity to PUSD for its decisions related to COVID-19 safety measures. The court also found that Allos failed to present evidence of a qualifying disability under FEHA, as her alleged vaccine allergy and other health conditions did not constitute a disability. Additionally, the court held that PUSD's interactive process and accommodations were reasonable and that Allos did not suffer an adverse employment action, as she voluntarily retired. The court concluded that Allos's claims for associational discrimination, retaliation, and Labor Code violations were without merit. View "Allos v. Poway Unified School District" on Justia Law

Wanda Brown, the elected treasurer of the City of Inglewood since 1987, raised concerns in late 2019 and early 2020 about the city's financial management, specifically alleging that the mayor had misappropriated public funds. Following these allegations, Brown claimed she faced retaliatory actions from the city and its officials, including a reduction in her salary and authority, exclusion from meetings and committees, and other punitive measures. Brown subsequently filed a lawsuit against the city, its mayor, and council members for retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5, which protects whistleblowers.The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, which sought to strike Brown's retaliation claim on the grounds that she was not an "employee" under section 1102.5. The court reasoned that Brown's claim did not arise from protected speech activities but from alleged retaliatory actions. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, concluding that Brown's retaliation claim did arise from protected activities and that she was not an "employee" under section 1102.5, as the statute did not explicitly include elected officials within its protections.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment. The court held that elected officials, such as Brown, are not considered "employees" under Labor Code section 1106 and therefore cannot invoke the protections of section 1102.5. The court's decision was based on the statutory language, legislative history, and the context of related whistleblower statutes, which indicated that the Legislature did not intend to include elected officials within the scope of these protections. View "Brown v. City of Inglewood" on Justia Law

A group of entities managing a university hospital and a union representing the hospital’s service workers have been negotiating a successor agreement since 2016. The hospital proposed three key changes: granting itself unilateral control over employment terms, imposing a no-strike clause, and eliminating binding arbitration. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that these proposals collectively constituted bad faith bargaining, as they would leave union employees worse off than if no contract existed.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially sustained the complaint against the hospital, concluding that the hospital violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by bargaining in bad faith. The ALJ found that the hospital’s proposals, including a restrictive grievance-arbitration procedure and a broad management rights clause, indicated an intent to undermine the bargaining process. The hospital’s regressive bargaining tactics further supported this conclusion.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the NLRB’s findings, agreeing that the hospital’s conduct amounted to bad faith surface bargaining. The court found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB’s conclusion that the hospital’s proposals, taken together, would strip the union of its representational role and leave employees with fewer rights than they would have without a contract. The court also upheld the NLRB’s procedural decisions, including vacating an earlier decision due to a board member’s financial conflict of interest and seating a new member for the final decision.The court denied the hospital’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement, affirming the NLRB’s order for the hospital to recognize and bargain with the union, rescind unilateral changes, compensate affected employees, and submit periodic reports on bargaining progress. View "District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The case involves members of the Auburn University Board of Trustees and various Auburn University employees (defendants) who were sued by Patti Northcutt and her husband, Walter Northcutt (plaintiffs). Patti, a former employee and doctoral student at Auburn, alleged that the defendants retaliated against her for previous lawsuits and grievances she had filed, which were settled through agreements. She claimed that the defendants breached these settlement agreements and interfered with her ability to complete her doctoral program and obtain employment at Auburn.The plaintiffs initially filed their complaint in the Lee Circuit Court, which they amended multiple times. The third amended complaint included claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, and procedural due process violations, as well as state-law claims for breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss these claims, asserting federal qualified immunity and State immunity under the Alabama Constitution.The Lee Circuit Court granted the motion to dismiss the First Amendment and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims but denied the motion regarding the other claims. The defendants then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to dismiss the remaining claims.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the petition in part, directing the trial court to dismiss the claims for monetary damages against the employee defendants in their individual capacities under § 1983 for equal protection and procedural due process violations, based on federal qualified immunity. The Court also directed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees related to state-law claims for prospective injunctive relief, based on State immunity. However, the Court denied the petition regarding the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees related to federal-law claims for prospective injunctive relief and the state-law claims for monetary damages against the employee defendants in their individual capacities. View "Ex parte B.T. Roberts" on Justia Law

The case involves the Citizen Action Defense Fund (Fund) requesting the initial offers for collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) under the Public Records Act (PRA). The key issue is whether the deliberative process exemption under RCW 42.56.280 applies to these initial offers after the tentative CBAs have been signed by the parties and submitted to the OFM director but before they are signed by the governor or funded by the legislature.The Thurston County Superior Court found that OFM violated the PRA by withholding the records, ruling that the deliberative process exemption did not apply once the CBAs were signed by the state’s negotiation representative and the union. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the records were still exempt because the CBAs had not been presented to the governor for approval or funded by the legislature, and thus were not yet final.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the deliberative process exemption continues to apply until the legislature has funded the CBAs. The court reasoned that the collective bargaining process is not complete until the final step in the statutorily required implementation process, which is the approval of funding by the legislature. Therefore, the deliberative process exemption protects the documents related to collective bargaining until the CBAs are funded by the legislature. View "Citizen Action Def. Fund v. Off. of Fin. Mgmt." on Justia Law

Miller Plastic Products Inc. fired Ronald Vincer in March 2020, during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Vincer had expressed concerns about the company's pandemic protocols and its operating status, believing it was not an essential business. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that Vincer’s termination violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because it was motivated, at least in part, by his protected concerted activity.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Vincer’s conduct was protected under the NLRA and that his termination was motivated by his protected activity. The ALJ also disallowed testimony regarding after-acquired evidence at the liability stage of the proceeding. Miller Plastic petitioned for review of the Board’s order, and the Board cross-applied for enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that Vincer’s conduct was protected under the NLRA and was a motivating factor for his termination. The court also agreed with the ALJ’s decision to disallow testimony regarding after-acquired evidence at the liability stage, noting that such evidence is typically considered during compliance proceedings.However, the court found that the NLRB failed to adequately address certain evidence related to Miller Plastic’s affirmative defense that it would have fired Vincer even absent his protected conduct. The court remanded the case to the Board to address the significance of that evidence. The court denied Miller Plastic’s petition for review in part and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement in part, affirming the finding that Vincer was terminated because of his concerted activity. View "Miller Plastic Products Inc v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between several plaintiffs, who are foreign nationals participating in an au pair program, and Cultural Care, Inc., a Massachusetts company that places au pairs with host families in the U.S. The plaintiffs allege that Cultural Care violated their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state wage and hour laws by failing to pay them legal wages. They also claim violations of state deceptive trade practices laws.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Cultural Care's motion to dismiss the complaint, including its defense of derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Company. Cultural Care appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, concluding that Cultural Care had not established entitlement to protection under Yearsley. After the case returned to the District Court, Cultural Care filed a motion to compel arbitration based on agreements in contracts signed by the au pairs with International Care Ltd. (ICL), a Swiss company. The District Court denied this motion, ruling that Cultural Care had waived its right to compel arbitration and that it could not enforce the arbitration agreement as a nonsignatory.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The court held that Cultural Care, as a nonsignatory to the ICL Contract, could not enforce the arbitration agreement under either third-party beneficiary theory or equitable estoppel. The court emphasized that the arbitration agreement did not demonstrate with "special clarity" that the signatories intended to confer arbitration rights on Cultural Care. Additionally, the plaintiffs' statutory claims did not depend on the ICL Contract, making equitable estoppel inapplicable. View "Posada v. Cultural Care, Inc." on Justia Law

A jurisdictional dispute arose between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) over maintenance work at SSA Terminals in the Port of Seattle. Both unions claimed the right to perform the work under their respective collective bargaining agreements. SSA initially assigned the work to ILWU, but IAM threatened economic action, prompting SSA to seek a resolution from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB assigned the work to IAM, leading ILWU to pursue a grievance against SSA, which an arbitrator upheld.SSA then filed an unfair labor practice charge against ILWU, alleging that ILWU's pursuit of the grievance violated section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act. ILWU defended itself by invoking the work-preservation defense, which protects primary union activity. The NLRB rejected this defense, stating it was not applicable in pure jurisdictional disputes where multiple unions have valid contractual claims. The NLRB ordered ILWU to cease and desist from pursuing the maintenance work at Terminal 5.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the NLRB's position was foreclosed by its previous decision in International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. NLRB (Kinder Morgan), which established that a valid work-preservation objective provides a complete defense against alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(D). The court vacated the NLRB's order and remanded the case for the NLRB to evaluate the merits of ILWU's work-preservation defense. The court also denied the petitions for review by IAM and the NLRB's cross-petition for enforcement. View "International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

A psychiatric hospital in Florida, Suncoast Behavioral Health Center, and its management company, UHS of Delaware, Inc. (UHS-DE), were cited by the Secretary of Labor for violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s General Duty Clause by failing to protect employees from patient-on-staff violence. The citation followed an OSHA investigation that revealed numerous instances of workplace violence at the hospital.The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission) affirmed the citation, concluding that Suncoast and UHS-DE operated as a single employer and that the Secretary of Labor had proven the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed abatement measures. The Commission did not address the economic feasibility of two specific abatement measures related to hiring additional security staff, as the feasibility and efficacy of the other six measures were undisputed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the Commission’s finding that Suncoast and UHS-DE operated as a single employer, noting that they shared a common worksite, integrated operations, and common management. However, the court found that the Secretary of Labor failed to prove the economic feasibility of the two security staffing-related abatement measures. Consequently, the court set aside the ALJ’s finding regarding these two measures but upheld the citation based on the six undisputed abatement measures.The court denied in part and granted in part the petition for review, affirming the citation but clarifying that Suncoast and UHS-DE are not obligated to implement the two security staffing measures. View "UHS of Delaware, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Education announced a reduction in force (RIF) on March 13, 2025, affecting about half of its employees. Subsequently, twenty-one states and several labor organizations and school districts filed lawsuits against the Secretary of Education, the Department, and the President, claiming that the RIF violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They also sought an injunction against the transfer of certain functions out of the Department, announced by the President on March 21, 2025.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts consolidated the cases and granted the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, determining that the RIF and the transfer of functions were likely ultra vires and violated the APA. The court concluded that the actions were arbitrary and capricious, lacking a reasoned explanation and failing to consider the substantial harms to stakeholders.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the appellants' motion for a stay pending appeal. The court found that the appellants did not make a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits, particularly regarding the APA claims. The court also determined that the plaintiffs would suffer substantial injury without the injunction, as the RIF made it effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory functions. The court concluded that the public interest favored maintaining the injunction to ensure the Department could fulfill its legal obligations. View "New York v. McMahon" on Justia Law