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

Plaintiff, a Field Medical Case Manager, filed suit against her employer, Genex, claiming that Genex was required to pay her overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), Md. Code Lab. & Empl. 3–401 to 3-431, for the overtime hours she worked. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Genex. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to come forward with any persuasive evidence that Genex violated the FLSA by classifying her primary duty as professional and, therefore, plaintiff is exempt from the mandatory overtime provisions of the FLSA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. GENEX Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Prime, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 95-25.1 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that she was unlawfully deprived of wages earned as commissions and overtime pay earned from work of more than 40 hours per week. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Prime's motion to compel arbitration, concluding that Prime failed to produce evidence demonstrating that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any of her claims. The court dismissed Prime's appeal from the class action certification order, concluding that its petition for permission to appeal the district court’s order was untimely filed. View "Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P." on Justia Law

Intertape petitioned for review of the Board's order concluding that Intertape committed three unfair labor practices prior to and during the course of a union campaign, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 58(a)(1), and directing that a second election be held based upon two of the three violations. The Board cross-petitioned for enforcement. The court enforced the portion of the Board’s order concluding that Intertape engaged in unlawful interrogation of an employee in February of 2012, as well as the portion of the Board’s order concluding that Intertape unlawfully confiscated union flyers in March of 2012. The court denied enforcement, however, of the Board’s order concluding that Intertape engaged in unlawful surveillance of union activity in April of 2012, and remanded to the Board so that it can modify its order. Because the court's decision eliminates one of the bases upon which the Board set aside the election, the Board will need to reconsider its decision to direct a second election. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part and denied it in part. View "Intertape Polymer Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Carilion, alleging wrongful termination for engaging in protected activity, including opposing an unlawful employment practice, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that no individual activity in which plaintiff engaged by itself constituted protected oppositional conduct and that the so called “manager rule,” in any event, prevented an employee whose job responsibilities included reporting discrimination claims from seeking protection under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. The court held, however, that the proper test for analyzing oppositional conduct requires consideration of the employee’s course of conduct as a whole and that the “manager rule” has no place in Title VII jurisprudence. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, servers for hotels and restaurants at the National Harbor complex in Maryland, filed suit against their employers, alleging violations of the tip-credit provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203(m), their collective bargaining agreement, and Maryland state law. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court found that the statutory requirements that an employer inform an employee of section 203(m) and permit the employee to retain all his tips unless the employee is in a tip pool with other regularly tipped employees does not apply to employees, like plaintiffs, who are seeking only the recovery of the tips unrelated to a minimum wage or overtime claim. In this case, plaintiffs, concede that their wages do not fall below the statutory minimum, and the “the statutory language,” of the FLSA, including section 203(m), “simply does not contemplate a claim for wages other than minimum or overtime wages.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jahir v. Ryman Hospitality Properties" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an African-American flight attendant, filed suit alleging that United Airlines failed to adequately respond to a racist death threat left in her company mailbox. The district court concluded that plaintiff was subjected to a racially hostile work environment, but granted summary judgment to the airline after deciding that it was not liable for the offensive conduct. The court concluded that the district court properly concluded that a reasonable jury could properly construe the notes at issue as racially-tinged death threats so severe that it does not matter they were not pervasive. The court concluded that the anonymous nature of severe threats or acts of harassment may, in fact, heighten what is required of an employer, particularly in circumstances where the harassment occurs inside a secure space accessible to only company-authorized individuals. In this case, the conduct at issue is some of the most serious imaginable in the workplace – an unmistakable threat of deadly violence against an individual based on her race, occurring in the particularly sensitive space of an airport. Given the severity of the threat, a reasonable jury could find that United’s response was neither prompt nor reasonably calculated to end the harassment. Indeed, a reasonable jury could find that United’s response was instead reluctant and reactive, intended to minimize any disruption to day-to-day operations instead of identifying a perpetrator and deterring future harassment. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Board, alleging that it violated his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Plaintiff was involved in an incident with a student at the high school where he was employed as an assistant principal. Plaintiff subsequently filed for medical leaves due to his post-traumatic stress disorder which was related to the CPS investigation that occurred after the incident. Plaintiff was also transferred to a different school. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that the Board did not interfere with plaintiff's FMLA rights and did not retaliate against plaintiff for exercising such rights. The court also rejected plaintiff's ADA claim, concluding that evidence demonstrated that the Board did not discriminate nor retaliate against him based on his disability. Further, the Board did not fail to accommodate plaintiff's condition. View "Adams v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Pub. Sch." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who is blind, filed suit against the County, alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, or Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. Plaintiff was employed by the County when the County opened a new call center using software that was inaccessible to blind employees. The County did not transfer plaintiff to the new call center along with her sighted coworkers and the County also did not hire her for a vacant position there. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the County on the Section 504 claim, finding that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether plaintiff could perform the essential job functions of a call center employee; whether the County reasonably accommodated her; and if the County did not, whether its failure to do so may be excused because of undue hardship. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County on the Title II claim where public employees cannot use Title II to bring employment discrimination claims against their employers. View "Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cnty, MD" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, police officers for the Town of Mocksville, filed suit alleging that the Town and others violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights when plaintiffs were terminated for speaking out about corruption and misconduct at the Mocksville Police Department. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that plaintiffs acted as private citizens on a matter of undisputed public concern by privately reaching out to the Governor's Office about suspected corruption and misconduct. Such actions cannot be considered as part of plaintiffs' daily professional activities. Further, it was clearly established law at the time that speech about serious misconduct in a law enforcement agency is protected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to Defendants Cook and Bralley. View "Hunter v. Mocksville, NC" on Justia Law

HI petitioned the BRB's decision upholding the ALJ's grant of Ricky Eason's claim for temporary partial disability under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. 901-950. The court agreed with the Director that the LHWCA’s statutory framework supports his construction of the LHWCA and nothing in Potomac Electric Power Co. [PEPCO] v. Dir., OWCP precludes reclassification of a scheduled permanent partial disability to a temporary total disability. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded to the BRB to enter an order dismissing Eason's claim. View "Huntington Ingalls Indus. v. Eason" on Justia Law