Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

[09/02] Weber v.Universities Research Ass'n, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has waived her discrimination and retaliation arguments under the direct method of proof; and 2) plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, because even if she does not have to show that she was meeting defendant's legitimate business expectations, defendant is still entitled to summary judgment as she has failed to show that there were similarly situated men who were treated more favorably than she was.

[09/02] Branham v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) against her former employer for being terminated from her job as a receptionist, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to defendant based on the submission of negative medical certification indicating that plaintiff could return to work; 2) plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact about her entitlement to FMLA leave, and defendant was not permitted to deny her leave based on the certification requirement when it never properly requested certification or informed her of the consequences of failing to provide the same, as required by Department of Labor regulations.

[09/01] Polycarpe v. E&S Landscaping Serv., Inc.
In consolidated Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) actions claiming that during plaintiffs' employment they worked more than forty hours per week and defendant employers failed to pay them either a federally mandated minimum wage, federally mandated overtime pay, or both, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) if a district court, ruling for a defendant, applied the "coming to rest" doctrine -- for instance, by looking at where defendant bought an item instead of where an item was produced, the court must vacate the judgment for the defendant if there was a question about where the "goods" or "materials" were produced or where they moved; and 2) for the purposes of the FLSA's handling clause, an item will count as "materials" if it accords with the definition of "materials" -- tools or other articles necessary for doing or making something -- in the context of its use and if the employer has employees "handling, selling, or otherwise working on" the item for the employer's commercial (not just any) purposes.

[09/01] Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.

[09/01] Morse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
In plaintiff's action claiming that the Transportation Security Administration violated his veterans' preference rights when it declined to waive its maximum entry age requirement in connection with his application for employment as a Federal Air Marshal, the Merit Systems Protection Board's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed as the TSA is exempt from section 3330(a) of Title 5, which provides Board appeal rights for preference eligible veterans.

More...

ERISA

[08/31] Cent. States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. O'Neil Bros. Transfer & Storage Co.
In a multi-employer pension fund administrator's suit against an employer seeking interim payment of withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, district court's grant of summary judgment for administrator is affirmed as defendant's default is governed by the provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 1399(c)(5)(B), and under that section, as interpreted reasonably by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the entire amount of the withdrawal payment is immediately payable upon default and that obligation is not deferred because of the pendency of arbitration.

[08/31] Howley v. Mellon Fin. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for benefits and for unlawful discrimination under ERISA, as well as several related state law claims, arising from denial of plaintiff's claim for benefits under defendant's Displacement Program, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as, although the district court erred in applying a heightened standard of review and by considering the extra-record evidence that managers helped plan plaintiff's termination prior to the sale of the company, it is nonetheless clear that defendant abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim for benefits.

[08/30] Bell v. Pfizer, Inc.
In an action for failure to provide ERISA benefits, judgment for defendants is affirmed where defendants' alleged misrepresentations concerned only plaintiff's stock benefits under a non-ERISA plan and, therefore, did not violate any fiduciary obligations under ERISA.

[08/17] Marshall v. Baggett
In an action to recover delinquent contributions to an ERISA plan, judgment for plaintiff is vacated where the district court erred in granting the default judgment because the complaint did not support a judgment against defendant in her individual capacity.

[08/12] Gastronomical Workers Union Local 610 v. Dorado Beach Hotel Corp.
In a suit brought by the trustees of a multi-employer pension fund against employers under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(3), which supplies a cause of action in favor of an ERISA fiduciary, claiming that employers failed to make sufficient payments to keep the Fund in compliance with ERISA's minimum funding requirement for 2005, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's dollar-certain judgment is vacated as, the record states that, by the time the court entered the judgment, the deficiency may have vanished, and the record contains no explanation of the vanishing deficiency sufficient to salvage the judgment; 2) district court did not err in denying remediation under section 502(g)(2); and 3) district court's order denying relief under section 502(g)(1) is vacated in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Hardt, and remanded for the district court to determine whether the trustees have achieved some degree of success on the merits, and decide whether to award attorneys' fees, costs, and/or other remedies encompassed within section 502(g)(1).

More...

Immigration Law

[09/01] Mwasaru v. Napolitano
A Kenyan citizen's appeal of a district court's order dismissing her petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking a court order compelling U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to transfer her file to an immigration judge to commence removal proceedings, review by the IJ of the denial of adjustment status, and the issuance of a diversity visa should the IJ approve her application, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as section 1154 rendered petitioner ineligible for a DV-2007 visa as of midnight on September 30, 2007, and therefore, she is likewise ineligible for adjustment of status under section 1255 because no visa is immediately available.

[09/01] Lin v. Holder
A Chinese couple's petition for review of a BIA's affirmance of an IJ's decision that petitioners were not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal and are eligible to be deported is denied as petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating past persecution or a well founded fear of future persecution that if they return to China they will be persecuted on account of their opposition to and failure to comply with family planning policies.

[09/01] US v. Melchor-Meceno
Defendant's sentence for illegally reentering the U.S. is affirmed where, because defendant's prior Colorado felony menacing conviction was categorically a crime of violence (as outlined in U.S.S.G. section 2L1.2), the district court properly applied the enhancement to defendant's sentence.

[09/01] Garcia v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioners' motion to reopen their removal proceedings, the petition is granted in part where the BIA erred by failing to exercise its discretion to consider or decline to consider petitioners' supplemental brief and the attached exhibit relating to a new medical condition allegedly incurred by mother. However, the petition is denied in part where the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioners' daughter's new medical condition did not warrant reopening.

[08/31] Kone v. Holder
Malian citizens' petition for review of BIA's denial of their application for asylum and related relief is granted, and the BIA's decision vacated and remanded as the BIA effectively only addressed half of petitioner's argument in concluding that petitioner could not assert a derivative claim based on potential hardship to her daughter, but failed to address her assertion that female genital mutilation of the daughter would also constitute direct persecution of her parents.

More...

Workers' Comp

[08/31] Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.

[08/27] Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump
In plaintiff's suit against her deceased husband's insurer for workers' compensation death benefits, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and remanded where: 1) the treating physician's opinion was based on a reliable foundation and, therefore, legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict; 2) the trial court's omission of the but-for component in the jury charge constitutes reversible error; and 3) an insurance carrier is entitled to have a jury determine the disputed amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees for which it is liable.

[08/19] Milpitas Unified Sch. Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a School District employee's suit for workers' compensation claims, the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is affirmed as, the language of section 4660 permits reliance on the entire American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, including the instructions on the use of clinical judgment, in deriving an impairment rating in a particular case.

[08/12] Alvarez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a claimant's objection to a panel qualified medical evaluator's ex parte communication with defense counsel, and a request for a new panel qualified medical evaluator under section 4062.3(f), in a workers' compensation proceeding for death benefits, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) denial of the petition is annulled and remanded as section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel qualified evaluator, with no exception based on the initiator of the communication or for "administrative" matters. However, because a certain degree of informality in workers' compensation procedures has been recognized, not every conceivable ex parte communication permits a party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel qualified medical evaluator.

[08/05] Casanova v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a former baggage handler's suit against American Airlines, claiming he was terminated in retaliation for claiming workers' compensation benefits, jury verdict for plaintiff of more than $1 million, $112,000 for lost wages, $250,000 for emotional injury, and $724,000 for punitive damages, and district court's denial of defendant's post-judgment motions are reversed as defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 as plaintiff's dissembling and insubordination was sufficient cause for his discharge.

More...

Insurance Law

[09/02] Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l. Union Ins. Co.
In an action by one insurer against another seeking $10 million in subrogation proceeds, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff waived certain rights by refusing repeated invitations to participate in subrogation discussions. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, as the excess insurer, plaintiff was entitled to a priority interest in the subrogation proceeds representing insured losses.

[09/01] Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.

[08/31] Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.

[08/30] Uhm v. Humana, Inc.
In an action against an insurer for nonpayment of Medicare benefits, the dismissal of the action is affirmed where 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs' breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims because they were not properly exhausted under the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act; and 2) plaintiffs' fraud and consumer protection act claims, while not subject to the Act’s exhaustion provisions, were expressly preempted.

[08/30] Vill. Northridge Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
In homeowners association's suit against an insurance company, claiming that the insurer fraudulently induced it to settle a Northridge earthquake-related claim for less than it was worth under the policy, judgment of the court of appeals is reversed as a release of a disputed claim does not permit a party to elect the remedy of a suit for damages when the release itself bars that option. Instead, the insured party to the release must follow the rules governing rescission of the release before suing the insurer for damages.

More...