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

Lupyan was a CCI instructor since 2004. Her supervisor, Thomas, noticed that she seemed depressed and suggested she take a personal leave of absence. On a request form, Lupyan requested “personal leave” from December 4 through December 31, 2007. Thomas suggested that she seek short-term disability coverage instead. Lupyan received certification from her doctor. CCI’s human resources department determined that she was eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, rather than personal leave. CCI’s Administration instructed Lupyan to initial the box marked “Family Medical Leave” on her request and changed the projected date of return to April 1, 2008. FMLA rights were not discussed in the meeting. CCI allegedly mailed Lupyan a letter explaining the Act. Lupyan denies receiving the letter, and denies having any knowledge that she was on FMLA leave until she attempted to return to work. On March 13, 2008, Lupyan advised CCI that she had been released to return with restrictions. On April 1, Thomas informed Lupyan that she could not return with restrictions. Lupyan provided a full release from her psychiatrist, but was advised on April 9 that she was being terminated due to low student enrollment, and because she had not returned within the 12 weeks allotted for FMLA leave. Lupyan claims this was the first time she knew that she was on FMLA leave. Lupyan sued, claiming interference with her FMLA rights and that she was fired in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. The district court granted CCI summary judgment. The Third Circuit reversed, finding remaining issues of material fact. View "Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges Inc." on Justia Law

Former employees of RHI filed suit on behalf of themselves and others, alleging that RHI failed to pay overtime and improperly classified them as overtime-exempt employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201. Both had signed employment agreements that contained arbitration provisions: “[a]ny dispute or claim arising out of or relating to Employee’s employment, termination of employment or any provision of this Agreement” shall be submitted to arbitration. Neither agreement mentions classwide arbitration. RHI moved to compel arbitration on an individual basis. The district court granted the motion in part, compelling arbitration but holding that the propriety of individual versus classwide arbitration was for the arbitrator to decide. The court entered an order terminating the case. Rather than immediately appealing, RHI proceeded with arbitration until the arbitrator ruled that the employment agreements permitted classwide arbitration. The district court denied a motion to vacate the arbitrator’s partial award. The Third Circuit reversed. Because of the fundamental differences between classwide and individual arbitration, and the consequences of proceeding with one rather than the other, the availability of classwide arbitration is a substantive “question of arbitrability” to be decided by a court absent clear agreement otherwise.View "Opalinski v. Robert Half Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

The New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act, N.J. Stat. 34:11-56.25 (PWA) provides that laborers on certain public works projects are to be paid the prevailing wage. Carpenters hired to work on the Revel Casino Project in Atlantic City claimed that the Revel Casino Project is a “public work” within the meaning of the PWA because it received financial assistance in the form of incentives, tax exemptions, and tax reimbursements from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (EDA), which, they argued is a “public body” within the meaning of the Act. They assigned their claims for unpaid prevailing wages to the plaintiffs, employee benefit plans within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, and trust funds within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. 141. The district court held that the claims were completely preempted under ERISA section 502(a). Although it did not directly address LMRA complete preemption, the court also noted that the complaint “seeks interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.” The Third Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to remand to state court, holding that neither statute completely preempts the PWA. View "NJ Carpenters v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of NJ" on Justia Law

Shamokin Filler, a coal preparation facility in Shamokin, Pennsylvania, has been regulated by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) since 1977. After a change in ownership in 2009, the new owners challenged MSHA’s jurisdiction, contending that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), not MSHA, should oversee it. Presumably the new owners wanted to avoid the more stringent requirements imposed by MSHA regulations and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801. MSHA, rather than OSHA, has much stricter oversight requirements including regarding respirable coal dust standards. The Secretary of Labor and an Administrative Law Judge for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission disagreed and concluded that Shamokin was engaged in the “work of preparing the coal,” as defined in the Mine Act. Shamokin argued that its plant does not engage in the “work of preparing the coal” because it makes its 100% coal products out of already processed coal. The Third Circuit rejected the argument and denied a petition for review. Shamokin’s interpretation of the statute lacked any basis in the text of the Mine Act. View "Shamokin Filler Co. Inc v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n" on Justia Law

Hildebrand was a detective for the Allegheny County DA’s Office when he was terminated in 2011. He unsuccessfully filed an internal grievance. Hildebrand claimed that his termination was part of “a well-known and established practice to push out older workers through termination or forced resignation.” Hildebrand completed an Intake Questionnaire with the EEOC, indicating that he was the victim of age discrimination and that he “want[ed] to file a charge of discrimination.” The EEOC subsequently issued a right-to-sue letter. Hildebrand sued, asserting violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621-634, Title VII (retaliation), 42 U.S.C.1983 (violation of the Equal Protection Clause; First Amendment free speech rights), and the Pennsylvania Whistleblower and Human Relations Acts. The district court dismissed the Title VII retaliation claim and stated that the complaint failed to provide facts, i.e. specific dates, to establish exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the 1983 claims, but vacated dismissal of the ADEA claim. A state or local government employee may not maintain an age discrimination claim under section 1983, but may only proceed under the ADEA. A plaintiff is not obligated to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies with particularity, but may allege in general terms that the required administrative process has been completed. The EEOC Intake Questionnaire, when properly completed, constitutes a charge of discrimination. View "Hildebrand v. Allegheny Cnty." on Justia Law

In 2009, Thompson was hired as a mortgage underwriter by Security Atlantic and assigned to a training class led by a representative of REMN, identified as a sister company of Security Atlantic. In 2010, allegedly in response to a HUD investigation into mortgage practices, Thompson and others were asked to fill out applications to work for REMN. Thompson completed the application; her subsequent paychecks were issued by REMN. Security Atlantic is no longer in business. Thompson and her colleagues continued to do the same work, at the same desks, at the same location. Thompson’s pay rate, work email address, and supervisors remained the same. Thompson alleged that the companies and individual supervisors permitted her and others to regularly work more than eight hours per day and more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation; misrepresented to workers that they were exempt, salaried employees, ineligible for overtime pay. The district court dismissed her claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201–219, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J. Stat. 34:11-56a. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded Thompson provided sufficient information about the scope of the individual defendants’ workplace authority and of specific statements concerning overtime pay, to allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that they are liable. View "Thompson v. Real Estate Mortg. Network" on Justia Law

Roldan, a pretrial releasee under supervision of the Virgin Islands Probation Office, was found murdered. Probation officer Semper was fired, as “extremely negligent in the supervision” of Roldan. Semper claimed that he was not the officer assigned to Roldan. He sought reinstatement and back pay, alleging violation of his due process rights and 18 U.S.C. 3602, which provides that a district court shall appoint probation officers and “may, for cause, remove a probation officer appointed to serve with compensation.” ‖The district court dismissed. Rejecting the government’s argument Roldan was not among those excepted service employees eligible for review of adverse agency actions under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Semper failed to set forth a money-mandating statute or regulation giving him the right to contest his termination in a Tucker Act proceeding. Following denial of certiorari, Semper filed another suit, citing federal question jurisdiction, and asserting a Bivens claim against the chief judge in his individual capacity; a claim against that judge in his official capacity; a claim against the United States pursuant to the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Administrative Procedure Act; and a claim under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. 1361, against the judge. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of three claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and remanded with instructions to dismiss his individual capacity claim against the judge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Semper v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Bason was an Assistant Attorney General with the Virgin Islands Department of Justice, subject to a collective bargaining agreement. The Governor of the Virgin Islands approved Bason’s immediate termination. The Union submitted a grievance challenging the decision. An arbitrator found that the Governor lacked just cause to remove Bason and awarded immediate reinstatement. The Virgin Islands Superior Court vacated the award “only to the extent that it grants relief prior to July 23, 2010.” The Government filed a notice of appeal. The Union moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the Virgin Islands Supreme Court lacked appellate jurisdiction because neither the court nor the arbitrator ever established the amount of back pay owed to Bason, rendering the judgment non-final. The Virgin Islands Supreme Court held that an order mandating immediate reinstatement constitutes an appealable injunction and reversed the reinstatement. The Union sought certiorari, but on December 28, 2012, the President signed H.R. 6116, to eliminate Third Circuit certiorari jurisdiction over final decisions of the Virgin Islands Supreme Court and replace it with direct review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Third Circuit concluded that it retained certiorari jurisdiction over proceedings that were filed in Virgin Islands courts before the enactment of H.R. 6116, but dismissed the petition as moot because Bason had died.View "United Indus., Serv., Transp., Prof'l, & Gov't Workers v. Gov't of the V.I." on Justia Law

In 2011, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a new regulation governing calculation of the minimum wage an employer must offer (prevailing wage) under the H-2B visa program, which permits U.S. employers to recruit foreign workers to fill unskilled, non-agricultural positions that no qualified U.S. worker will accept, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). Associations representing employers in non-agricultural industries that recruit H-2B workers, concerned about higher labor costs as a result of the 2011 Wage Rule, challenged its validity. The district court and the Third Circuit upheld the regulation, rejecting arguments that DOL lacked authority to promulgate legislative rules concerning the H-2B program and that, even if the DOL has such rulemaking authority, its violation of certain procedural requirements invalidated the Rule.View "LA Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

Egg Harbor Township authorized construction of a Community Center and, as required by N.J.S. 52:38-3 adopted a project labor agreement (PLA). All contractors working on the project were required to sign the PLA, which contained a “supremacy provision,” providing that the PLA, with the local Collective Bargaining Agreements, superseded any national agreement, local agreement or other collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Sambe, the general contractor, signed the PLA. Sambe subcontracted roofing work to Donnelly, which signed the PLA and agreed that any party it selected to perform work would also be required to sign the PLA. Donnelly selected the Carpenters Union to perform the work, even though it was not a signatory to the PLA, apparently because the two were parties to a CBA. Sheet Metal Workers protested. The NLRB assigned the work to Carpenters and later concluded that Sheet Metal violated the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 185, by maintaining a section 301 suit against Donnelly and Sambe following that decision. In the parallel litigation district court granted summary judgment on Sheet Metal’s breach of contract claim. The Third Circuit granted the NLRB’s petition for enforcement of its order; vacated the breach of contract judgment against Donnelly and Sambe; and remanded the with directions to enter judgment in favor of Donnelly and to conduct further proceedings on the claim against Sambe. View "Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n v. E.P. Donnelly, Inc." on Justia Law