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

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

Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Taiwan, filed suit alleging that by firing him Siemens had violated the antiretaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(1)(A). The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed the complaint because legislation is presumed to apply only domestically unless there is evidence Congress intended otherwise; (2) there is no indication Congress intended the whistleblower protection provision to have extraterritorial application; and (3) the facts in the complaint unequivocally demonstrate that applying the statute in this case would constitute an extraterritorial application. Therefore, section 78u-6(h) does not protect a foreign worker employed abroad by a foreign corporation where all events related to the disclosures occurred abroad. View "Liu v. Siemens AG" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against AECOM and AME under the whistleblower retaliation provision created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1514A. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim against AECOM and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that an alleged whistleblowing employee's communications need not "definitively and specifically" relate to one of the listed categories of fraud or securities violations in section 1514A in order for that employee to claim protection under the statute; a complaint under section 1514A must, however, plausibly plead that plaintiff engaged in protected activity - that plaintiff reasonably believed the conduct he challenged constituted a violation of an enumerated provision; in this case, plaintiff did not plausibly allege that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that there was such a violation here; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Nielsen v. AECOM Technology Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her coworker and her employer, LIRR, and others asserting violations of the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) and 42 U.S.C. 1983; state law claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and violations of state and city human rights laws. On appeal, the coworker challenged the district court's award of damages to plaintiff on her claim of malicious prosecution. The incident leading up to the suit concerned the coworker's accusation that plaintiff touched her breast in the workplace parking lot. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the coworker's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on liability. The court concluded, however, that the jury's award of damages exceeded limits reasonably allowable in the district court's discretion. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of the coworker's motion seeking a new trial on damages unless plaintiff accepted remittitur reducing the amount of the judgment. View "Stampf v. Trigg" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a tenured culinary arts teacher, filed suit against the school board, alleging that the school board violated her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Connecticut General Statute 10-151 when it failed to provide notice and a hearing before reducing her full-time position to half-time. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of her claim, concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to notice or a hearing where the reduction in hours and salary did not constitute a "termination" under Connecticut law. View "Mirabilio v. Regional School District 16" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Cablevision, alleging claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for Cablevision on both claims and the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's pendant state law claims. The court concluded that the district court overlooked evidence raising a genuine factual dispute as to whether Cablevision's justifications for firing plaintiff were a pretext for race discrimination and retaliation, and a rational jury could find that Cablevision discriminated against plaintiff and fired him in violation of Title VII. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for trial.View "Kirkland v. Cablevision Systems" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Verizon, alleging that the company discriminated against her, subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment, retaliated against her, and paid her less than her male colleagues for equal work. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant in part of Verizon's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, and denial of plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents. The court concluded that the district court erred when it refused to consider all allegations in the complaint in their totality, including those that were not sexually offensive in nature; the district court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiff's motion to compel documents related to Verizon's Reduction in Force events; and the district court erred when it refused to consider a witness's statements in an affidavit that contradicted prior deposition testimony. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.View "Moll v. Telesector Resources Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3, against the Department, alleging claims of retaliation for their complaints of racial harassment to the EEOC. Plaintiffs had shaved their heads to demonstrate solidarity with one of the plaintiffs who had cancer and lost his hair as a result of chemotherapy. The Department subsequently investigated complaints that plaintiffs were "skinheads." The court held that the Department's initiation and conduct of an investigation into the white plaintiffs' claims of racial harassment alleged to have been generated by an African American officer, and a complaint against plaintiffs for filing false reports with the EEOC of such harassment, were not adverse employment actions. The court also held that threats by the Department to charge plaintiffs with making a false report to the EEOC established a prima facie case of illegal retaliation but that the Department has shown a non-retaliatory purpose, and plaintiffs have presented no evidence of pretext. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' retaliation claims.View "Cox v. Onondaga Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't." on Justia Law