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

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that they violated Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 411 et seq., by denying him membership in IBT Local 817 in retaliation for his complaints about a union member. The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff pleaded facts affirmatively establishing that he was neither a member nor a member in substance of the union. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing that he was even a member "in substance." The court clarified that the LMRDA conferred subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought by members in substance as well as by formal union members. View "Brady v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Union alleging that it breached its duty of fair representation. The Union filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that plaintiff's claim was time-barred. The court held that the statute of limitations on plaintiff's claim accrued when the arbitrator issued his final award even though the collective bargaining agreement provided that the arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding subject to appeal by either party. Further, a state court action to vacate the arbitration award did not toll that limitations period. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the Union's motion. View "Kalyanaram v. Am. Ass'n. of Univ. Professors at The N.Y. Inst. of Tech., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, workers who installed, maintained, repaired, tested, and inspected fire alarm and suppression systems in public and private buildings for Simplex, filed suit claiming that Simplex did not pay them prevailing wages for their labor on public works in violation of NYLL section 220. This case raises two questions of New York law that the court certified to the state court: (1) whether a court should give deference not only to an agency's substantive interpretation of a statute arising from an unrelated proceeding but also to its decision to enforce that interpretation only prospectively; and (2) whether contracts committing parties to pay prevailing wages under section 220 need to specify - when the scope of the statute's coverage is unclear to the parties - what particular work the prevailing wages will be paid for. View "Ramos v. SimplexGrinnell LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his discrimination claim against his former employer under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue. Defendants moved to dismiss on the basis of a clause contained in plaintiff's employment contract, which indicated that English law governed the agreement and that "any dispute arising hereunder shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts." The court affirmed, holding that where a contract contained both a valid choice-of-law clause and a forum selection clause, the substantive law identified in the choice-of-law clause governed the interpretation of the forum selection clause, while federal law governed the enforceability of the forum selection clause; under English law, plaintiff's discrimination claims arose under the employment agreement, within the meaning of the forum selection clause; and the forum selection clause was enforceable under federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Martinez v. Bloomberg LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging, inter alia, unlawful discrimination and hostile work environment. The court concluded, inter alia, that the jury was precluded from finding that plaintiff had not actually engaged in the conduct charged against him in the section 75 of the New York State Civil Service Law hearing. Inasmuch as the district court did not expressly instruct the jury that its fact-findings were cabined in this regard, the jury charge was in error. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court with respect to the state law claims and its award of backpay to plaintiff; affirmed the judgment as to plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against the ECWA and the concomitant award of punitive damages against the ECWA; reversed the judgment imposing liability against the individual defendants on plaintiff's section 1983 claims against them, and therefore also reversed the judgment insofar as it awarded punitive damages against the individual defendants; and affirmed the district court's attorney's fee award. View "Matusick v. Erie Cnty Water Auth., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Andalex, alleging claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under federal and state law, as well as claims that Andalex failed to notify her of her right to continuing health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), 29 U.S.C. 1166 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Andalex and dismissed her claims. The court affirmed the district court's judgment except with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claims. Based on the discrepancies between the EEOC statement and subsequent testimony, a reasonable juror could infer that the explanation given by Andalex was pretextual, and that, coupled with the temporal proximity between the complaint and the termination, the complaint at issue was a but-for cause of defendant's termination. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to require denial of the summary judgment motion on the retaliation claims. View "Kwan v. The Andalex Group LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action claim against defendants for violations of the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act (WARN), 29 U.S.C. 2102(a)(1). Section 2102(a)(1) requires employers to give employees 60 calendar days notice in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. The court held that the district court correctly determined that the private equity defendants were investors, not single employers with their subsidiary within the meaning of WARN and were properly dismissed. The court held, however, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to HoldCo which operated the entity plaintiff worked for, because plaintiff raised a question of material fact as to whether HoldCo was a single employer with BH S&B Holdings. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "Guippone v. BH S&B Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants for overtime wages. The parties eventually agreed to a settlement. The district court approved the settlement and granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees. Defendants subsequently appealed the district court's decision on plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely where the entry of judgment did not restart the time to appeal. View "Perez v. AC Roosevelt Food Corp." on Justia Law

HealthBridge appealed from an order of the district court granting a petition brought by the NLRB under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 160(j), seeking to enjoin temporarily alleged unfair labor practices related to a long-running labor dispute between HealthBridge and the Union. The court concluded that the NLRB could contingently delegate the power to authorize 10(j) petitions to the NLRB General Counsel. Such delegations were in effect here and the petition at issue was properly authorized by the General Counsel under those delegations. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, which involved preliminary injunctions generally and not the specific right to injunctive relief created by the NLRA, did not impact the standard for section 10(j) petitions. The district court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in granting the petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kreisberg ex rel. NLRB v. Healthbridge Mgmt." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit to contest a wage freeze imposed in 2011 on Nassau County employees by the Nassau Interim Finance Authority (NIFA). The police unions contended that the wage freeze was imposed in violation of the Contracts Clause, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, and that the authority conferred on NIFA to impose such a freeze had expired under the terms of the applicable statute, N.Y. Pub. Auth. Law 3669(3). The district court granted summary judgment to the police unions on their state law claim without reaching the constitutional question. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the district judge should have declined to reach the pendant state law claim, which required it to interpret, as a matter of first impression, an important state legislative scheme to prevent the fiscal demise of Nassau County. View "Carver v. Nassau County Interim Finance" on Justia Law