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

In 2019, several college athletes from NCAA Division I schools filed a complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state wage laws. They argued that they were entitled to federal minimum wage compensation for the time spent representing their schools in sports. The NCAA and member schools moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the athletes, as "amateurs," were not considered employees. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the athletes had sufficiently pleaded facts that might allow them to be classified as employees under the FLSA.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania applied the multifactor test from Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., to determine whether the athletes could be considered employees. The court concluded that the athletes had plausibly pleaded that they might be employees and denied the motion to dismiss. The NCAA and member schools appealed, and the District Court certified an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part the District Court’s decision denying the motion to dismiss. However, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s application of the Glatt test, directing it to apply an economic realities analysis grounded in common-law agency principles. The Third Circuit held that college athletes might be employees under the FLSA if they perform services for another party, primarily for that party’s benefit, under that party’s control, and in return for compensation or in-kind benefits. The court also rejected the argument that the tradition of amateurism alone could bar athletes from asserting FLSA claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Johnson v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association" on Justia Law

Allied Painting & Decorating, Inc. withdrew from the International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund in 2005. Twelve years later, the Fund demanded $427,195 from Allied, claiming it was owed for the withdrawal. The key issue was whether the Fund's delay in sending the demand violated the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), which requires that such demands be made "as soon as practicable" after withdrawal.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reviewed the case after Allied contested the demand, arguing that the delay caused significant prejudice. The Arbitrator initially found that the Fund did not act "as soon as practicable" but concluded that Allied failed to prove severe prejudice, thus rejecting Allied's laches defense. The District Court, however, found that Allied was prejudiced by the delay and vacated the Arbitrator's Award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's order vacating the Arbitrator's Award. The Third Circuit held that the Fund's failure to send the demand "as soon as practicable" after Allied's withdrawal violated the MPPAA. The court clarified that the "as soon as practicable" requirement is a statutory mandate independent of any laches defense, meaning that the Fund's delay alone was sufficient to invalidate the demand, regardless of whether Allied could prove prejudice. Consequently, the Fund could not recover the claimed withdrawal liability from Allied. View "Allied Painting & Decorating Inc v. International Painters and Allied Trades Industry Pension" on Justia Law

Hugo Abraham Aguilar, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in 2001 and has three U.S. citizen children. In January 2014, he was arrested in New Jersey for allegedly sexually assaulting his stepdaughter and remained in pretrial detention for 1,332 days due to his inability to afford bail. In May 2017, Aguilar pled guilty to a reduced charge of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to 1,332 days in prison, with credit for time served. Shortly after his sentencing, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Aguilar statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, citing his inability to demonstrate "good moral character" due to his confinement for more than 180 days as a result of his conviction. The IJ also denied his request for a continuance to challenge his conviction in state court. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Aguilar's appeal, agreeing with the IJ's findings and concluding that the IJ acted within his discretion in denying the continuance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that pre-conviction detention credited toward a defendant's sentence is considered confinement "as a result of conviction" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Consequently, Aguilar's 1,332 days of pre-conviction detention, credited as time served, precluded him from establishing the required good moral character for cancellation of removal. The court also denied as moot Aguilar's challenge to the BIA's decision dismissing his appeal from the IJ's denial of a continuance, as his state post-conviction relief efforts had concluded unsuccessfully. The Third Circuit denied Aguilar's petition for review. View "Aguilar v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Lontex Corporation, a small Pennsylvania business, holds a registered trademark for “Cool Compression” used in its athletic compression apparel. Lontex sued Nike, Inc. for trademark infringement after discovering Nike's use of the phrase “Cool Compression” in its product names and marketing materials. Nike had rebranded a line of its athletic clothing as “Nike Pro” and used the phrase “Cool Compression” in product names on its website and catalogs. Lontex sent a cease-and-desist letter to Nike in 2016, but Nike continued using the phrase for some time.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held a trial where the jury found Nike liable for willful trademark infringement and contributory infringement, awarding Lontex $142,000 in compensatory damages and $365,000 in punitive damages. The District Court also trebled the compensatory damages to $426,000 and awarded Lontex nearly $5 million in attorney’s fees, deeming the case “exceptional” under the Lanham Act. Nike appealed the findings and the damages awarded, while Lontex cross-appealed the dismissal of its counterfeiting claim and the denial of profit disgorgement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s findings on trademark infringement, willfulness, and the trebling of damages. The Court held that a reasonable jury could find Nike’s continued use of “Cool Compression” after receiving the cease-and-desist letter as willful infringement. However, the Court vacated the award of attorney’s fees, finding that the District Court relied on broad policy considerations rather than specific facts of the case. The Court remanded the issue of attorney’s fees for further proceedings. The Court also upheld the dismissal of Lontex’s counterfeiting claim and the denial of profit disgorgement. View "Lontex Corp v. Nike Inc" on Justia Law

StoneMor, Inc. operates cemeteries and funeral homes, with maintenance workers at two cemeteries unionized under the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 469. The Union and StoneMor negotiated a collective bargaining agreement (the "Agreement"), which was ratified on October 5, 2020. The Agreement included a grievance procedure requiring the Union to file grievances within ten days of a dispute. After ratification, StoneMor sent drafts of the Agreement with a clarified wage provision, which the Union contested. The Union did not file a grievance until January 5, 2021, after the Agreement was executed on December 29, 2020.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reviewed the case and vacated the arbitrator's award. The District Court held that the Agreement was enforceable upon ratification on October 5, 2020, and that the grievance provision was triggered by October 30, 2020, when paychecks were issued without the salary increase. The court found that the arbitrator's decision, which allowed the Union to wait until January to file a grievance, was contrary to the Agreement's plain meaning.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The Third Circuit held that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by disregarding the Agreement's clear terms, which made the Agreement binding upon ratification. The court emphasized that the grievance procedure was mandatory from the ratification date, and the arbitrator's decision to allow a delay in filing the grievance was not supported by the Agreement. The court concluded that the arbitration award reflected a manifest disregard of the Agreement and was correctly vacated. View "Stonemor Inc v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 469" on Justia Law

The case involves the United States government's appeal against the District Court's dismissal of one of two counts in an indictment against Reginald Hopkins. Hopkins was initially arrested on state firearms charges, and while awaiting his state preliminary hearing, a federal grand jury indicted him on charges of distributing cocaine base and being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. The state charges were subsequently withdrawn. Hopkins moved to dismiss the federal indictment, invoking a so-called "ruse exception" to the Speedy Trial Act (STA), arguing that his rights under the Act had been violated because he had been federally indicted over four months after his arrest by state authorities and because he had not been brought to trial within 70 days of that state arrest.The District Court held two evidentiary hearings and eventually dismissed one count of the indictment, the felon-in-possession charge, based on the ruse exception. The government appealed this decision, arguing that the STA contains no such ruse exception.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the government, concluding that a ruse exception premised on a state arrest is inconsistent with the text of the STA and that there are sound policy reasons for declining to adopt a ruse exception. The Court reversed the order of the District Court and reinstated the dismissed count of the indictment. View "United States v. Hopkins" on Justia Law

The case involves Robert Haggerty, a first-time offender who was indicted on three counts of receiving a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, as well as one count of possessing such depictions. Haggerty admitted to communicating with undercover detectives posing as underage girls using online messaging platforms. A search of Haggerty's house and truck yielded two tablets containing a total of 97 still images and 9 videos of child sexual abuse material.The District Court applied multiple Guideline enhancements at sentencing, including a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7), which provides for a graduated enhancement scheme based on the number of "images" involved in a child-exploitation offense. Haggerty objected to the application of a five-level, number-of-images enhancement, arguing that the Guideline is unambiguous and does not include videos. The District Court overruled Haggerty’s objection and applied the five-level enhancement, calculating a total offense level of 32, which yielded an advisory Guideline range of 121 to 151 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that "image," in the moving picture or video context, unambiguously means "frame." Deference to the Commentary’s 75-images rule is therefore unwarranted. Instead, the number of frames comprising a moving picture or video will determine the specific sentencing enhancement that a District Judge must apply. The court vacated the District Court’s sentencing order and remanded for resentencing in a manner consistent with its holding. View "United States v. Haggerty" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought a civil enforcement action against Dale Chappell and his investment entities for insider trading. The SEC alleged that Chappell traded securities based on material, nonpublic information about the FDA's feedback on a drug developed by Humanigen, a company in which Chappell's entities were the largest shareholders. The FDA had expressed significant concerns about the drug's clinical trial and recommended an additional trial. Despite this, Humanigen submitted an application for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) without conducting a second trial. Chappell sold a significant portion of his Humanigen stock before the FDA's denial of the EUA application was publicly announced, avoiding substantial losses.In the District Court, the SEC sought and obtained a preliminary injunction to freeze Chappell’s assets. Chappell appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. It found that the SEC had shown a likelihood of success on its claim that Chappell violated insider trading laws. The court concluded that the FDA's feedback was material and that Chappell had the necessary mindset to commit fraud. The court also found that the preliminary injunction factors, including irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest, supported the injunction. The court noted that without the injunction, there was a substantial potential injury to Humanigen shareholders if Chappell was able to move assets out of reach of future judgment creditors. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chappell" on Justia Law

The case involves Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), a natural gas company that sought to abandon and expand its pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. To do so, Transco needed a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which it obtained. However, the certificate was subject to conditions, including that Transco receive three additional permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). After receiving these permits, Transco began its pipeline project. However, three environmental advocates filed an administrative appeal with the Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) challenging PADEP's issuance of the permits. In response, Transco initiated a lawsuit in the District Court seeking to enjoin the administrative appeal, arguing that the Natural Gas Act preempts the state law allowing the appeal.The District Court rejected Transco's preemption arguments and denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. Transco appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, finding that none of the theories of preemption advanced by Transco or the state agency applied in this case. The Court held that the Natural Gas Act does not expressly preempt administrative appeals to the EHB, nor does it field preempt such appeals. The Court also found that the possibility of multiple challenges in different fora to PADEP permitting decisions under the Clean Water Act for interstate natural gas pipelines does not impose an obstacle to the purposes of the Natural Gas Act. Therefore, the Court concluded that Transco's motion for a preliminary injunction was correctly denied. View "Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co LLC v. Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board" on Justia Law

Samantha Peifer, an employee of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, filed a lawsuit against her employer alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Peifer, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and later became pregnant, requested accommodations from her employer due to her inability to perform certain tasks. Her requests were initially denied, but later granted after she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, she was not allowed to work from home as requested due to her high-risk pregnancy and exposure to COVID-19. Peifer eventually resigned, citing discriminatory treatment, and filed additional charges with the EEOC.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Board's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Peifer could not establish a prima facie case for any of her claims. Peifer appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that Peifer's claims partly failed but concluded that the District Court was best situated to analyze the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis on whether Peifer makes out a prima facie case under an adverse employment action theory. The Court of Appeals also concluded that Peifer makes out a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination based on the Board’s denials of her light-duty requests under a failure to accommodate theory. The case was remanded for further analysis on Peifer’s adverse employment theory and failure to accommodate theory, while the District Court’s decisions on Peifer’s constructive discharge allegation and retaliation claim were affirmed. View "Peifer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole" on Justia Law