Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A woman of Syrian descent, who worked as a computer-assisted design drafter at an architecture and engineering firm, was terminated from her job and subsequently sued her former employer. She alleged discrimination based on race and national origin, hostile work environment, retaliation, breach of contract, and a Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The core of her complaint was that she was denied promotions and demoted due to her race, harassed by another employee due to her Arab background, and retaliated against after reporting discrimination, culminating in her termination.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially dismissed all of her claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of most claims but allowed a retaliatory termination claim to proceed. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the employer on that claim, finding insufficient evidence of pretext for retaliation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Following this, the district court imposed sanctions on the plaintiff’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, reasoning that counsel should have known after discovery that the claim lacked a basis and unreasonably multiplied proceedings by opposing summary judgment and appealing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the imposition of sanctions. It held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the opposition to summary judgment was so baseless as to warrant sanctions. The appellate court concluded that counsel had at least two non-frivolous arguments for opposing summary judgment, including shifting reasons for termination and deviations from policy, making sanctions inappropriate under § 1927. The Fourth Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s judgment imposing sanctions. View "Ali v. BC Architects Engineers, PLC" on Justia Law

A substitute teacher in a large Maryland public school system challenged the school board’s policy requiring all staff, including substitutes, to affirm that they would refer to students by their preferred pronouns and not disclose a student’s gender identity to parents without the student’s consent. The teacher, citing her sincerely held religious beliefs, refused to sign the affirmation and requested a religious accommodation, which was ultimately denied. As a result, she was not permitted to substitute teach in the following school years.She brought claims in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the school board, asserting violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act related to religious accommodation, and First Amendment violations of her rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. She sought damages, declaratory relief, and a preliminary injunction. The district court dismissed her First Amendment claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, finding the policy to be neutral and generally applicable, thus subject to rational basis review, and rationally related to legitimate government interests, including compliance with Title IX and student safety. The court concluded that the speech at issue was part of her official duties as a teacher and thus not protected by the First Amendment. The court denied a preliminary injunction, finding no likelihood of success on the merits for the constitutional claims and no irreparable harm for the Title VII claim, which was allowed to proceed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the First Amendment claims and denial of a preliminary injunction. The Fourth Circuit held that the policy was neutral and generally applicable, survived rational basis review, and the compelled speech fell within the teacher’s official duties. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief on her constitutional claims. View "Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools" on Justia Law

A multiemployer pension plan regulated under ERISA and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) sought to recover withdrawal liability from Florida Glass of Tampa Bay and related entities after Florida Glass ceased performing covered work and entered bankruptcy. In 2016, the pension plan filed a contingent proof of claim in Florida Glass’s bankruptcy proceedings, but did not clearly determine or assert withdrawal liability at that time. Several years later, after confirming withdrawal had occurred, the plan issued a formal notice and demand for payment. The defendants did not timely seek arbitration under the statutory process, and, when sued to collect the withdrawal liability, argued that the plan’s earlier bankruptcy filing constituted both a statutory notice and demand and an acceleration of liability, thus triggering the statute of limitations before the suit was filed.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland rejected the defendants’ statute of limitations defense. The court held that the 2016 contingent proof of claim was neither a notice and demand nor an acceleration under the MPPAA, so the limitations period did not begin until the 2022 notice and demand letter. Alternatively, the court reasoned that even if the 2016 filing qualified as a notice and demand, the defendants had waived any related defenses by failing to timely arbitrate. The court granted summary judgment for the pension plan and awarded damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs, minus the bankruptcy distribution already received.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that a contingent proof of claim does not constitute a notice and demand, nor an acceleration, unless it clearly satisfies the statutory requirements. Since the 2016 filing was ambiguous and labeled contingent, it did not trigger the statute of limitations, rendering the suit timely. The court affirmed the judgment and associated relief for the pension plan. View "International Painters and Allied Trades Industry v. Florida Glass of Tampa Bay, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a long-term employee at a private aviation services provider, was diagnosed with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, she was permitted to work entirely from home as business slowed, with her in-person duties reassigned to another employee. As business returned to normal, management repeatedly asked her to resume a hybrid work schedule to address essential accounting functions that required physical presence. Although she verbally agreed to return on a part-time basis, she failed to attend in person as promised, communicated sporadically about her schedule, and ultimately missed multiple days of work without proper notice. After this pattern continued for several months, she was discharged for job abandonment.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted summary judgment for the employer. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, retaliation, or failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court determined that, even if such a case were made, the employer had provided legitimate business reasons for its decisions and had made substantial efforts to accommodate the plaintiff’s medical condition.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the decision de novo. The appellate court held that the plaintiff did not qualify as a “qualified individual” under the ADA because she could not perform the essential functions of her position, even with reasonable accommodation. The court emphasized that the employer’s repeated attempts to accommodate her were sufficient, and her failure to cooperate or consistently communicate precluded liability. The court also rejected her retaliation claim, finding no causal connection between her protected activity and her termination. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Haggins v. Wilson Air Center, LLC" on Justia Law

Osvaldo Figueroa worked as a night-shift turkey loader for a poultry company. His main duties included catching and loading turkeys onto trucks, and sometimes fueling, sanitizing, and washing the trucks before the loading process. Employees recorded their work hours using a punch clock, and paystubs included entries for overtime hours, load trips (base pay per trip), and attendance hours. Figueroa alleged that he and other turkey loaders were not paid promised hourly wages and overtime, claiming violations of both the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina first dismissed Figueroa’s amended complaint, concluding that he was paid under a piece-rate system rather than an hourly wage system, and that he failed to sufficiently allege entitlement to unpaid overtime or hourly wages. The district court also found that he received adequate notice of his compensation structure under the NCWHA. After Figueroa amended his complaint again, the district court dismissed his NCWHA claims but allowed the FLSA claim to proceed to discovery. On summary judgment, the district court found that Figueroa was a piece-rate employee, that overtime was properly calculated according to FLSA regulations, and that Butterball kept accurate records. The court rejected Figueroa’s assertions of improper hour-shifting and unpaid pre-shift work due to lack of supporting evidence for his own situation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that Figueroa was properly classified as a piece-rate employee, not an hourly worker, and that Butterball correctly calculated and paid overtime according to FLSA provisions. The court also found that Figueroa did not establish a viable claim under the NCWHA, as any error in dismissal was harmless in light of the record, and that Butterball provided sufficient notice of pay terms. The district court’s orders were affirmed. View "Osvaldo Figueroa v. Butterball, LLC" on Justia Law

A coal miner was employed at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex until October 2019, when he was told the mine was “shut down” and his job was terminated without receiving advance notice. He brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees against five related mining companies, alleging they failed to provide notice of termination as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). Evidence at trial showed that the companies shared common officers, directors, ownership, and business addresses, and that personnel and equipment were regularly exchanged among them. Employees testified that the companies operated interchangeably and were managed collectively by the same family.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia certified the class, denied summary judgment to both sides, and submitted the matter to a jury. The jury found the companies liable under the WARN Act, determining that they operated as a single employer and that at least 50 employees suffered an employment loss through termination or reduction in hours. The district court entered judgment for the plaintiff and, after trial, denied the defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial. The companies appealed, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude the companies were a single employer under the WARN Act and that the district court’s instruction regarding the definition of employment loss was correct. The court also found that the companies forfeited any argument regarding an inconsistent jury verdict by failing to object before the jury was discharged. View "Gautier v. Tams Management, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of current and former battalion chiefs employed by the City of Alexandria Fire Department alleged that the City failed to pay them overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The battalion chiefs’ compensation was based on a complex pay structure. Chiefs worked either operational or administrative schedules. Operational chiefs rotated through 24-hour shifts within a nine-day cycle, and administrative chiefs worked a standard 40-hour week. The City paid the chiefs a predetermined amount per pay period, corresponding to either 80 administrative hours or 106 operational hours, regardless of the exact number of hours worked, with additional compensation for hours worked beyond their scheduled shifts.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment for the City. The district court found that the chiefs were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements under the “highly compensated employee” exemption. Specifically, the court held that the chiefs were paid on an hourly basis and applied the salary basis test found in 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(b). The court concluded the chiefs received guaranteed pay that satisfied the regulatory requirements and that the pay had a reasonable relationship to their usual earnings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment but for different reasons. The appellate court held that the district court applied the wrong salary basis test, finding that the appropriate test was under 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a), which applies to employees paid on a weekly or less frequent salary basis. The court concluded that, despite the complexity of the pay system, the chiefs received a predetermined salary not subject to improper deductions and, therefore, were compensated on a salary basis. As a result, the chiefs were correctly deemed exempt from overtime requirements, and the district court’s decision was affirmed. View "Kelly v. City of Alexandria" on Justia Law

A Black woman who had worked for a community college for nearly two decades applied for a promotion to Assistant Dean of Workforce Solutions after serving as Director of Special Populations. The position required significant experience in workforce development, including knowledge of specific funding and grant-writing. The applicant pool included her and a Hispanic male colleague who had overseen larger programs and had more direct experience with the job’s requirements. A search committee interviewed candidates, with the final hiring decision made by the Vice President of Enrollment and Outreach Initiatives.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland initially dismissed her claims of race and gender discrimination under Title VII. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded in part, allowing her to pursue a disparate treatment claim focused on the college’s failure to promote her and its issuance of a corrective action letter for a payroll error. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the college, finding that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination, and that the employer’s stated reason—selecting the more qualified candidate—was not shown to be pretextual.Reviewing the case de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The court assumed that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination but held that she did not meet her burden to show the employer’s justification was pretext. The court found that the selected candidate’s qualifications aligned more closely with the position, and that neither evidence of preselection, circumstantial evidence of discriminatory comments, nor disparate discipline sufficed to demonstrate intentional discrimination or pretext. The court thus affirmed the judgment in favor of the college. View "Hood-Wilson v. Board of Trustees, Community College of Baltimore" on Justia Law

After divorcing in 2010, a former employee and his ex-spouse entered into a court-approved domestic relations order in North Carolina that divided his employer-sponsored retirement plan benefits. The order stipulated that the ex-spouse would be treated as a surviving spouse, entitling her to survivor benefits under the plan, and stated that her portion of the benefit "may be reduced as necessary" to cover the cost of the survivor annuity. Years later, when the employee retired and began receiving benefits, he argued that the plan administrator improperly reduced his monthly payment by factoring the cost of the survivor annuity into his share, rather than allocating the cost solely to his ex-spouse’s portion. He also claimed that the plan administrator failed to timely provide all requested plan documents, warranting statutory penalties.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted summary judgment for the employer and plan administrator. The court found that the plan administrator correctly interpreted the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to permit, but not require, allocating the cost of the survivor annuity to the ex-spouse’s share, and that the benefit calculation was consistent with the plan terms and not an abuse of discretion. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by any delay in receiving plan documents and denied statutory penalties.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Fourth Circuit concluded that de novo review was appropriate for interpreting the QDRO, while the plan administrator’s benefit calculations were reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court held that the QDRO’s language was unambiguous and permissive, not mandatory, regarding who should bear the cost of the survivor annuity. The court also upheld the denial of statutory penalties, finding no prejudice or bad faith. The district court’s summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Gasper v. EIDP, Inc." on Justia Law

An employee of a company specializing in training security officers raised concerns to management about unsafe working conditions, including the handling of weapons and a hazardous firing range where bullet ricochets had resulted in injuries. The employee, along with other instructors, formally complained to supervisors about these dangers, especially during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when he also questioned restrictions on personal protective equipment. After voicing these safety concerns, the employee was suspended and later terminated, allegedly for insubordination.The employee filed a charge with the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asserting that his termination was unlawful retaliation for engaging in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). After investigation, an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing and determined that the employee was not a managerial employee and was therefore protected by the NLRA. The ALJ found that the primary reason for the suspension and termination was the employee’s repeated advocacy regarding workplace safety, not insubordination. The ALJ concluded that the employer had committed unfair labor practices. The employer appealed, and the NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision with minor modifications.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the NLRB’s order. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court held that the Board’s conclusion—that the employee was not a managerial employee—was supported by the record. The court found that the employee lacked authority to formulate or implement management policy and did not possess the discretion characteristic of managerial status. Therefore, the employee was entitled to the NLRA’s protections. The court granted the NLRB’s application for enforcement of its order and denied the employer’s cross-petition for review. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Constellis, LLC" on Justia Law