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

Plaintiffs, 11 Asian-Americans currently or formerly Port Authority police officers, sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, alleging that they were passed over for promotions because of race. The plaintiffs asserted: individual disparate treatment, pattern-or-practice disparate treatment, and disparate impact. A jury found liability for discrimination against seven plaintiffs and awarded back pay and compensatory damages. The district court also granted prevailing plaintiffs retroactive promotions, seniority benefits, and salary and pension adjustments corresponding with hypothetical promotion dates. The Second Circuit affirmed in part. With regard to individual disparate treatment allegations, the district court properly admitted background evidence predating onset of the limitations period; there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the Port Authority discriminated within the limitations period. The district court erred in: submitting the pattern-or-practice disparate treatment theory to the jury in a private, nonclass action and concluding that the “continuing violation” doctrine applied to the disparate impact theory so that the jury could award back pay and compensatory damages for harms predating the statute of limitations. The court remanded for reconsideration of damages and equitable relief to the extent that relief was premised on failures to promote outside the limitations period. View "Port Auth. Police Asian Jade Soc'y v. The Port Auth. of NY & NJ" on Justia Law

Brault applied for Disability Insurance Benefits in 2007, claiming that he became disabled in 2006 because of nerve damage in his left arm and a cervical spine injury he sustained in a motor-vehicle accident. After his application was denied initially and on reconsideration, he requested an administrative hearing. Brault’s counsel asserted a Daubert-like objection to the vocational expert’s testimony, contending it was unreliable. The ALJ never directly responded to the objections, but issued a ruling which relied on the VE’s testimony, agreed that positions existed in the eight DOT positions the VE had identified at the numbers the VE had given, and denied Brault’s application for benefits. The district court affirmed the denial. The Second Circuit affirmed, finding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence. The administrative law judge was not required to state expressly his reasons for accepting a vocational expert’s challenged testimony.View "Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin." on Justia Law

This petition for enforcement of an order of the Board and an employer's cross-petition for review primarily concerned the validity of an employer's dress code provision limiting employees to displaying only prounion buttons on their work uniforms. Also at issue were the discharges of two employees. These issues arose out of efforts to unionize employees at several Starbucks coffee shops in Manhattan. The court concluded that Starbuck's enforcement of its one button dress code was not an unfair labor practice, nor was one of the two challenged discharges; as to the other discharge, a remand was required. Therefore, the court enforced in part, granted the cross-petition for review in part, and remanded. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Starbucks Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Townsend alleged that she was sexually harassed by defendant, who was the husband of the President of her company, the sole corporate Vice President, as well as a shareholder of the company. Before Plaintiff Grey-Allen, the Human Resources Director of the company, completed an internal investigation of these allegations, she was fired by defendants. On appeal, the parties challenged the decisions of the district court that granted summary judgment dismissing Grey-Allen's Title VII retaliation claim; denied defendants' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative for a new trial; and awarded Townsend attorney's fees and costs. The court considered all of the arguments of the parties and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Townsend v. Benjamin Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint alleging disparate treatment on the basis of race and gender, retaliation, and sexual harassment by her employer, the State Parole Division, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, plaintiff contended that her supervisor's touchings were sufficiently abusive to support her hostile work environment claim and that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were genuine issues of fact to be tried. The court agreed that summary judgment dismissing the hostile work environment claim was inappropriate and vacated so much of the judgment as dismissed that claim, remanding for further proceedings. View "Redd v. NYS Division of Parole" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaint challenging a number of agreements entered into by the City of New York with respect to labor conditions on certain City construction projects. Plaintiffs argued that the agreements regulated the labor market and were therefore preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151-169. The court found the project labor agreements in this case materially indistinguishable from agreements the Supreme Court found permissible under the market participation exception to preemption in Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island Inc. Because the City acted as a market participant and not a regulator in entering the agreements, its actions fell outside the scope of NLRA preemption. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "The Building Industry Electric Contractors Assoc., et al. v. City of New York et al." on Justia Law

HOP Energy appealed from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Local 553 Pension Fund. The district court held that HOP Energy was not exempt from withdrawal liability under the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461, because the purchaser of HOP Energy's New York City operating division lacked an obligation to contribute "substantially the same number of contribution base units" to the pension fund post-sale by HOP Energy had contributed pre-sale. The court agreed and held that the "contribution base units" were hours of employee pay. Although the purchaser of HOP Energy's New York City operating division had an obligation to contribute to the pension fund at the same contribution base unit rate, it had no obligation to contribute substantially the same number of hours of employee pay. Therefore, HOP was not exempt from withdrawal liability. View "Hop Energy, L.L.C. v. Local 553 Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an African-American and former Syracuse police officer, was suspended with pay pending investigation of an incident involving a fifteen-year-old girl whom he took to a hotel knowing she was a runaway. He was eventually suspended without pay and terminated. Plaintiff claimed that defendants, the City and certain police officers, discriminated against him by treating him more severely than white officers who committed acts of an equal or more serious nature. Because plaintiff's subsequent guilty plea to the charge of Endangering the Welfare of a Child resulted in his automatic termination under New York Public Officers Law 30(1)(e), he could not prove an "adverse employee action" for any of the measures taken by his employer after his guilty plea. Further, as a matter of law, plaintiff's suspension without pay pending the investigation did not, in these circumstances, amount to an adverse employment action, and plaintiff had no constitutionally recognized cause of action for deprivation of "professional courtesy" that police sometimes extended to their fellow officers. View "Brown v. City of Syracuse, et al." on Justia Law

This cross-appeal arose out of the trial and retrial of plaintiff's claim against his former employer and his supervisor for tortious interference with a job offer from another firm. Upon retrial, the second jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor and awarded substantive monetary damages. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting the new trial where the verdict, predicated almost entirely on the jury's assessment of credibility, could not be said to have been either egregious or a serious miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the court reversed the order of the district court, vacated the judgment entered on the basis of the second verdict, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reinstate the first verdict and to enter judgment in defendant's favor in accordance with that verdict.

In this case, the district court found that plaintiff's claims against defendant were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., because they arose under defendant's Pension Plan (Plan) and not separately and independently out of plaintiff's written employment agreement (Agreement). On appeal, plaintiff argued that the additional benefits he sought were based on a promise separate and independent from the Plan. The court held that the district court properly denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court because plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by ERISA where the Agreement merely described the benefits plaintiff would receive as a Plan member and it made no promises of benefits separate and independent from the benefits under the Plan. The suit was properly removed to federal court, the district court had federal jurisdiction over the case, and remand to state court was not warranted. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's action for failure to state a plausible claim. Finally, the court considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and concluded that they were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.