Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Robinson worked for Concentra as a medical assistant from 2003 until she was terminated in 2010. Robinson applied for Social Security disability benefits four days after being terminated, claiming that she had multiple sclerosis that rendered her unable to work. The initial application was denied. An ALJ reversed, summarizing Robinson’s statements that: she must use a cane to walk because of leg numbness; she has poor vision; her hands frequently cramp and she has difficulty holding objects; and she needs help with all household chores. Robinson then filed suit against Concentra under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 1981, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, claiming that she had been terminated on the basis of her race and color and in retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC and taking FMLA leave and that Concentra had interfered with her ability to take FMLA leave. The court entered summary judgment, finding that Robinson was estopped from showing that she was qualified for her position when she was terminated in September 2010, because she received disability benefits based on her statement that she was fully disabled as of June 2010. The Second Circuit affirmed, noting that Robinson failed to “proffer a sufficient explanation” for the contradictory statements. View "Robinson v. Concentra Health Servs.,Inc." on Justia Law

Peter Ricci, a Teamsters member since 1983, refused to endorse Union President Doyle in 2002. For the next 10 years, Ricci claims, he suffered retaliation. He was fired from jobs he should have kept; he was not placed in jobs he should have gotten; and generally disfavored, even as compared with members with less seniority. In 2012, members of the Union distributed newsletters containing statements about the Riccis. Those newsletters were also published on a website hosted on GoDaddy’s web servers. The Riccis claim that GoDaddy refused to investigate Ricci’s complaints. In the Ricci’s pro se defamation and retaliation suit, the district court dismissed all claims against GoDaddy and federal claims against the Union. The Second Circuit affirmed. GoDaddy is immune from the defamation claims under the Communications Decency Act of 1996: “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), and “No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” The labor claims were barred by the NLRA’s six‐ month statute of limitations, 29 U.S.C. 160(b). View "Ricci v. Teamsters Union Local 456" on Justia Law

Officer Matthews sued, alleging that the City of New York retaliated against him for speaking to his commanding officers about an arrest quota policy at his precinct. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment, holding that Matthews spoke as a public employee, not as a citizen, and that his speech was, therefore, not protected by the First Amendment. The Second Circuit vacated, reasoning that because Matthews’s comments on precinct policy did not fall within his official duties and because he elected a channel with a civilian analogue to pursue his complaint, he spoke as a citizen. View "Matthews v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Moulton, LLC entered a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Union that required the company to contribute to Union funds; to remit deductions from paychecks to those funds; and to submit to an audit upon request. Duane Moulton, as Moulton’s owner, officer, and shareholder, signed the CBA, reported hours worked by union members, and communicated with the auditor. In 2012, the funds initiated an audit. Moulton failed to comply. The funds granted an extension of time to file an answer, but neither Moulton nor the corporation filed a responsive pleading. The funds requested a default and served a copy of that request on the defendants. The district court clerk entered the default. Though the defendants continued to ignore the judicial proceedings, Moulton did begin to work with the auditor and responded to some communications. The auditor issued his final report concluding that the corporation owed the funds $451,300.52. Weeks later, the funds moved for default judgment. The district court declined to vacate the initial entry of default and granted default judgment, awarding $451,300.52 in fringe benefit contributions and deductions, $104,628.81 in interest, $99,203.93 in liquidated damages, and $7,001.95 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Second Circuit affirmed as to the corporation defendant, but remanded as to Moulton because the district court erred in calculating the damages entered against him. View "Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v. Moulton Masonry & Constr., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an adjunct professor, filed suit against WCC, alleging violations of her state and federal constitutional rights when WCC terminated her employment for purportedly making offensive comments in class. On appeal, WCC challenged the district court's partial denial of its motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds. The court held that WCC is not an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The court concluded that a finding of sovereign immunity for WCC would not serve the twin aims of the Eleventh Amendment because immunity would not further the state's interest in preserving its treasury, nor would it protect the integrity of the state. View "Leitner v. Westchester Community College" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the county and the police commissioner, alleging that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Because defendants do not challenge them on appeal, the court did not revisit the district court's conclusions that plaintiff's media communications enjoyed First Amendment protection. The court expressed no opinion as to whether plaintiff would have been able to prevail on the basis of his indirect evidence of retaliatory intent; concluded that plaintiff has proffered sufficient direct evidence of retaliatory intent from which a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between his protected speech and the Department's adverse employment actions and, therefore, plaintiff has established a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation; concluded that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on the Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle defense; and concluded that the record raises several genuine questions of material fact such that an award of summary judgment in defendants' favor is unjust. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment otherwise and remanded for further proceedings. View "Smith v. County of Suffolk" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a longtime steelworker in Lackawanna, New York, endured racial insults, intimidation, and degradation over more than three years, including slurs, evocations of the Ku Klux Klan, statements comparing black men to apes, death threats, and placement of a noose dangling from the plaintiff’s automobile. Supervisorsʹ meager efforts failed to stop the escalating abuse. Managers often appeared to condone or participate in part in the harassment. A jury awarded $1.32 million in compensatory damages for hostile or abusive work environment because of his race and the state tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury also assessed $24 million in punitive damages, mostly against the employer and its parent company, subsequently reduced to $5 million. The court also awarded the plaintiff substantial attorney fees and costs. The Second Circuit affirmed, but remanded for further reduction of punitive damages, holding that the district court correctly instructed the jury as to employer liability, that the jury could find that the plaintiff’s direct employer and the parent company constituted a single employer, that the jury verdict as to intentional infliction of emotional distress was supported by the evidence, and that the compensatory damages award was proper. View "Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc." on Justia Law

James G. Paulsen, a Regional Director for the NLRB, appealed the district court's order denying his petition under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 160(j), for an injunction prohibiting respondent from engaging in unfair labor practices and ordering the immediate reinstatement of certain discharged employees. Paulsen also appealed an August order denying his motion for an injunction ordering the immediate reinstatement of the discharged employees. Separately, Remington appealed from the district court's August order insofar as it denied its motion to dismiss Paulsen's petition on the ground that the NLRB had been improperly constituted under the Recess Appointments Clause and enjoined Remington from engaging in unfair labor practices. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss; concluded that because Remington's arguments concerning the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq., were not raised and do not implicate the court's jurisdiction, they are forfeited; affirmed the district court's denial of reinstatement to the housekeeping employees; and because the district court did not directly address Margaret Loiacono’s status, and because she was not offered re‐employment, the court reversed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief with respect to her and remanded to the district court with instructions to order that an offer of reinstatement be extended to her. View "Paulsen v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, delivery drivers for one or more defendant corporations owned by defendant Peter Glazman, filed suit under federal and state laws, alleging that defendants systematically undercompensated them for their work, purporting to treat them as franchisees while reaping disproportionate profits at plaintiffs' expense. At issue was the district court's resolution of New York law under its supplemental jurisdiction. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction; concluded that the statute of limitations barred the New York Franchise Sales Act (FSA), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 680 et seq., claims of six of the eight plaintiffs; although the court affirmed the FSA award as to the remaining two plaintiffs, the court determined that the related attorneys' fee award must be recalculated to reflect that modification in the substantive award; decided that the statute of frauds does not preclude plaintiffs from pursuing their New York Labor Law, N.Y. Labor Law 190 et seq., and contract claims against defendant; and remanded for further proceedings on these state-law claims and for recalculation of the FSA-related attorneys' fees. View "Kroshnyi v. U.S. Pack Courier Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, the police department, the police union, and five police supervisors, alleging violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and other federal and state laws. On appeal, the supervisors challenged the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity on the employment discrimination claims. The court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Defendant Carlone on Plaintiff Raspardo's hostile work environment claim where Carlone's behavior was sufficient to permit a jury to find a hostile work environment, and where Carlone's conduct was clearly established as unlawful sexual harassment at the time of the events in question and that objectively reasonably officers would not disagree that Carlone's conduct constituted sexual harassment. The court concluded that the five individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Raspardo v. Carlone" on Justia Law