Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc. (East Penn) did not fully compensate its workers for the time spent changing into uniforms and showering after shifts, which was required due to the hazardous nature of their work involving lead-acid batteries. The company provided a grace period for these activities but did not record the actual time spent. The U.S. Department of Labor sued East Penn under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for failing to pay employees for all time spent on these activities.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the government, determining that changing and showering were integral and indispensable to the workers' principal activities. The jury subsequently awarded $22.25 million in back pay to 11,780 hourly uniformed workers. The District Court, however, declined to award liquidated damages. East Penn appealed the decision, and the government cross-appealed the denial of liquidated damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's rulings. The Third Circuit held that employers bear the burden of proving that any unpaid time is de minimis (trivial). The court also held that employers must pay for the actual time employees spend on work-related activities, not just a reasonable amount of time. The court found that the District Court's jury instructions and the admission of the government's expert testimony were proper. Additionally, the Third Circuit upheld the District Court's decision to deny liquidated damages, concluding that East Penn had acted in good faith based on legal advice, even though that advice was ultimately incorrect.In summary, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, requiring East Penn to compensate employees for the actual time spent on changing and showering, and placing the burden of proving de minimis time on the employer. View "Secretary United States Department of Labor v. East Penn Manufacturing Inc" on Justia Law

In April 2020, a nursing home decided to pay its employees bonuses in recognition of their efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. These bonuses were temporary salary increases, which were gradually reduced over the next few months until salaries returned to almost original levels. The company did not notify the union representing its employees or provide an opportunity to bargain before implementing and scaling back the bonuses. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that the bonuses were wages subject to mandatory bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found that the bonuses were gifts rather than wages and thus not subject to mandatory bargaining. The ALJ also found that the management rights clause in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) authorized the company's actions. However, the ALJ found the company violated the Act by failing to respond to the union's information request.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the NLRB's determination that the bonuses were wages tied to employment-related factors and constituted hazard pay, making them subject to mandatory bargaining. The court also agreed with the NLRB that the management rights clause did not survive the CBA's expiration and thus did not authorize the company's unilateral actions. The court denied the company's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-petition for enforcement, including the make-whole remedy for affected employees and compensation for adverse tax consequences. The court also enforced the order regarding the company's failure to respond to the information request. View "Alaris Health at Boulevard East v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

In 2021, New Jersey enacted the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), which prohibits employers from refusing to hire job applicants based on cannabis use. In 2022, a retailer rescinded a job offer to an applicant, Erick Zanetich, after he tested positive for cannabis. Zanetich filed a lawsuit claiming the retailer's action violated CREAMMA and public policy. He sought redress individually and on behalf of a putative class.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed both counts of Zanetich's complaint. The court found that CREAMMA does not imply a private remedy for violations of its employment protections and that New Jersey's public policy exception to at-will employment does not apply to job applicants. Zanetich appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The Third Circuit held that CREAMMA does not imply a private remedy for job applicants who fail drug tests for cannabis. The court applied New Jersey's modified Cort test and found that CREAMMA does not confer a special benefit on job applicants, there was no legislative intent to provide a private remedy, and implying such a remedy would not advance CREAMMA's purposes. Additionally, the court held that New Jersey's public policy exception to at-will employment, as established in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., does not extend to job applicants. The court also declined to certify the state-law issues to the New Jersey Supreme Court, finding no significant uncertainty or importance warranting certification. View "Zanetich v. WalMart Stores East Inc" on Justia Law

Donna Glaesener, a black woman, has worked at the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation for nearly thirty years. In April 2018, she complained to the human-resources department about a lack of diversity and alleged discrimination in promotional decisions. She subsequently applied for several promotions but was not selected. In December 2018, she filed a formal EEOC complaint alleging discrimination. In November 2019, she sued the Port Authority, claiming she was denied promotions due to her race and in retaliation for her complaints and lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of the Port Authority. The court applied the Title VII burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green and found that the Port Authority had legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for not promoting Glaesener. The court concluded that Glaesener failed to show these reasons were pretexts for discrimination or retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo, considering all facts and reasonable inferences in Glaesener's favor. The court found no evidence supporting Glaesener's claims of discrimination or retaliation. For the Safety Manager position, the successful candidate had significantly more relevant experience. For the Chief Operations Examiner position, the successful candidate had a higher interview score, and the interview process was deemed legitimate and job-related. Similarly, for the Principal Programs & Training Coordinator and Superintendent of Transportation positions, the successful candidates were more qualified and performed better in interviews.The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the Port Authority's reasons for not promoting Glaesener were legitimate and not pretextual. View "Glaesener v. New York & New Jersey Port Authority" on Justia Law

Several contractors and an employee, who regularly handle public works projects for PennDOT and SEPTA, challenged Philadelphia's requirement for project labor agreements (PLAs) on public projects. These PLAs mandated union recognition and membership, and set workforce diversity goals. The plaintiffs argued that these requirements violated their First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They were ineligible to bid on certain city projects due to their existing collective bargaining agreements with the United Steelworkers, which is not affiliated with the required unions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to Philadelphia. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the union-eligibility requirement and failed to show that the diversity requirement caused them harm based on race. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs' § 1981 claim failed because race was not a but-for cause of their inability to work on city projects with PLAs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the union-eligibility requirement under the First Amendment. The court determined that the plaintiffs suffered a concrete and particularized injury by being ineligible to bid on city projects due to the PLAs. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims were not moot despite Philadelphia's subsequent changes to the PLAs, as the plaintiffs sought damages for past violations and prospective relief.The Third Circuit also found that the plaintiffs had standing to raise an Equal Protection claim, as they demonstrated an intent to bid on future projects covered by the PLAs. The court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider the merits of the plaintiffs' First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and § 1981 claims. View "Road-Con Inc v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Eric Gilbert filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing his interest in retirement accounts worth approximately $1.7 million. The issue was whether these accounts could be accessed by creditors due to alleged violations of federal law governing retirement plans. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the accounts were protected from creditors, and the District Court affirmed this decision.The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the trustee John McDonnell's complaint, which sought to include the retirement accounts in the bankruptcy estate, arguing that the accounts violated ERISA and the IRC. The court found that the accounts were excluded from the estate under § 541(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects interests in trusts with enforceable anti-alienation provisions under applicable nonbankruptcy law. The District Court upheld this ruling, agreeing that ERISA's anti-alienation provision applied regardless of the alleged violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the retirement accounts were excluded from the bankruptcy estate under § 541(c)(2) because ERISA's anti-alienation provision was enforceable, even if the accounts did not comply with ERISA and the IRC. The court also dismissed McDonnell's claims regarding preferential transfers and fraudulent conveyances, as the transactions in question did not involve Gilbert parting with his property. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the Bankruptcy Court's decisions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, shorten the time for briefing, and strike certain items from the appellate record. View "In re: Gilbert" on Justia Law

Two employees of a publicly traded company raised concerns internally that the company had overstated its earnings by not accounting for slower-than-expected drilling speeds. Subsequently, an article in The Wall Street Journal reported similar allegations, and within three months, the company terminated both employees. The employees then filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, claiming their termination violated whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). An administrative proceeding resulted in a preliminary order for their reinstatement, which the company ignored.The employees sought to enforce the reinstatement order in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, interpreting the relevant statute as not granting it the power to enforce the preliminary order. The employees appealed this decision.While the appeal was pending, the employees chose to abandon the administrative process and filed a separate civil action in federal court. Consequently, the administrative proceedings were terminated. The company then moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the employees' request to enforce the preliminary reinstatement order no longer satisfied the redressability requirement for Article III standing. The preliminary order was extinguished with the dismissal of the administrative proceedings, and a federal court cannot enforce a non-existent order. Therefore, the employees lost Article III standing during the litigation, and no exception to mootness applied. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it on mootness grounds. View "Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp" on Justia Law

Ephriam Rodriquez, a bus operator, was terminated by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) after accumulating excessive negative attendance points under his union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. His final absence on June 8, 2018, was due to a migraine headache. Following an informal hearing on June 26, where his discharge was recommended, Rodriquez applied for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and sought medical documentation to support his claim. Despite this, SEPTA held a formal hearing and approved his termination.Rodriquez filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging FMLA retaliation and interference. The jury found in favor of Rodriquez on the interference claim, awarding him $20,000 in economic damages, but ruled in favor of SEPTA on the retaliation claim. SEPTA then moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Rodriquez did not have a “serious health condition” under the FMLA at the time of his absence. The District Court granted SEPTA’s motion, leading to Rodriquez’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, holding that Rodriquez failed to demonstrate that his migraines constituted a “chronic serious health condition” as defined by the FMLA. Specifically, Rodriquez did not provide evidence of periodic visits to a healthcare provider for his migraines before his termination, which is a requirement under the FMLA regulations. The court concluded that there was no legally sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Rodriquez had a qualifying serious health condition at the time of his June 8 absence. View "Rodriquez v. SEPTA" on Justia Law

Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. (GOH) engaged in a scheme to underpay its employees by misappropriating fringe benefits owed under the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) and the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA). This led to two class-action lawsuits against GOH. GOH sought coverage under its insurance policy with Twin City Fire Insurance Company (Twin City), which denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide coverage. GOH and its Board of Directors counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaration that certain claims in the class actions were covered under the policy.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed GOH's counterclaims, concluding that the claims were not covered under the policy due to a policy exclusion for claims related to "Wage and Hour Violations." The court also granted Twin City's motion for judgment on the pleadings, affirming that Twin City had no duty to defend or indemnify GOH for the class-action claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The Third Circuit agreed that the claims in question were not covered under the policy because they were related to wage and hour violations, which were explicitly excluded from coverage. The court emphasized that the exclusion applied broadly to any claims "based upon, arising from, or in any way related to" wage and hour violations, and found that the factual allegations in the class actions were indeed related to such violations. Thus, Twin City had no duty to defend or indemnify GOH under the terms of the policy. View "Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Glenn O. Hawbake, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Marla Knudsen and William Dutra, representing a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against MetLife Group, Inc. They alleged that MetLife, as the administrator and fiduciary of the MetLife Options & Choices Plan, misappropriated $65 million in drug rebates from 2016 to 2021. Plaintiffs claimed this misappropriation led to higher out-of-pocket costs for Plan participants, including increased insurance premiums.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the case for lack of standing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and individualized injury. It reasoned that the plaintiffs had no legal right to the general pool of Plan assets and had not shown that they did not receive their promised benefits. The court found the plaintiffs' claims that they paid excessive out-of-pocket costs to be speculative and lacking factual support.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to establish an injury-in-fact, as their allegations of increased out-of-pocket costs were speculative and not supported by concrete facts. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide specific allegations showing how the misappropriated drug rebates directly caused their increased costs. The court emphasized that financial harm must be actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, to satisfy Article III standing requirements. Consequently, the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their ERISA claims. View "Knudsen v. MetLife Group Inc" on Justia Law