Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Roman Gonzales worked as a Security Police Officer for a government contractor managing a nuclear facility. He had a chronic back injury, for which he took prescription opiates. Battelle Energy Alliance, the contractor, was aware of his medical condition and medication. For several years, Gonzales performed his duties without incident, including after the Department of Energy began requiring more stringent security and medical certifications for such officers. Despite no change in his medication regimen or job performance, Battelle, after a change in medical staff and updated drug testing protocols, revoked Gonzales’s fitness-for-duty certification and subsequently terminated his employment. Gonzales then learned that management had informed coworkers he was being dismissed as an “opioid abuser,” which he reported to human resources.Gonzales filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After a five-day trial, the jury found in his favor on claims of retaliation and “regarded as” disability discrimination. Battelle moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that decisions involving the revocation of security-related certifications, such as the one at issue, were not subject to judicial review because such decisions are reserved for federal agencies under national security regulations. The district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that revocation of Gonzales’s fitness-for-duty certification under 10 C.F.R. § 1046 was subject to judicial review because it involved medical and physical standards, not predictive national security determinations or security clearance decisions reserved to the Department of Energy. The court distinguished between non-justiciable security clearance decisions and fitness-for-duty certifications, ensuring ADA protections remain enforceable. View "GONZALES V. BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC" on Justia Law

Former employees of a travel-nursing agency brought a putative class action against the agency, alleging wage-related violations. Each employee had signed an arbitration agreement with the agency that contained a delegation clause requiring an arbitrator—not a court—to decide on the validity of the agreement. Four initial plaintiffs had their disputes sent to arbitration: two arbitrators found the agreements valid, while two found them invalid due to unconscionable fee and venue provisions.After these initial arbitrations, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California confirmed three out of four arbitral awards. At this stage, an additional 255 employees joined the action as opt-in plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The agency moved to compel arbitration for these additional plaintiffs under their individual agreements. However, a different district judge raised the issue of whether non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel barred the enforcement of the arbitration agreements. After briefing, the district court denied the agency’s motion, concluding that the two arbitral awards finding the agreements invalid precluded arbitration for all 255 employees, effectively rendering their agreements unenforceable.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the application of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude the enforcement of arbitration agreements is incompatible with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court reasoned that such an approach undermined the principle of individualized arbitration and the parties’ consent, which are fundamental to the FAA. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the FAA does not permit using non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to invalidate arbitration agreements and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "O'DELL V. AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC." on Justia Law

An individual brought suit against her employer, a Delaware corporation, alleging various claims of discrimination based on age and disability under state and federal law. The employment contract between the parties included an arbitration provision, specifying that all employment-related disputes were to be resolved through binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), in accordance with procedures outlined in the California Arbitration Act. The contract also incorporated JAMS rules, which assign the arbitrator authority to resolve issues regarding the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement itself.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California reviewed the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The court recognized that the arbitration agreement, by incorporating the JAMS rules, delegated questions about the agreement's validity to an arbitrator. However, relying on California state court decisions, the district court determined that the presence of a severability clause—allowing a court or other competent body to sever invalid provisions—negated a “clear and unmistakable” delegation to the arbitrator. Consequently, the district court concluded it was responsible for determining validity and found the arbitration agreement unconscionable, denying the motion to compel arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the contract’s delegation clause, by clearly incorporating JAMS rules, unmistakably reserved the issue of the arbitration agreement’s validity for the arbitrator. The existence of a severability clause did not undermine this delegation. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration, vacated its unconscionability judgment, and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration. View "SANDLER V. MODERNIZING MEDICINE, INC." on Justia Law

Two companies that operate app-based delivery platforms challenged a Seattle ordinance enacted in 2023, which aims to protect gig economy workers from unwarranted account deactivations. The law requires “network companies” to provide workers with written deactivation policies and mandates that these policies be “reasonably related” to the companies’ safe and efficient operations. The ordinance also delineates examples of impermissible deactivation grounds, such as those based solely on customer ratings or certain background checks. The companies did not contest the general bar on unwarranted deactivations but argued that the notice and deactivation policy requirements violate the First Amendment and that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the companies sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the ordinance from taking effect. The district court denied their motion. It found that the ordinance regulates conduct (the act of deactivating accounts) rather than speech, and that any impact on expression is incidental. The court also concluded that the use of “reasonable” in the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, pointing to statutory context and specific examples for guidance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. The court held that the ordinance regulates nonexpressive conduct, not speech, and thus does not trigger First Amendment scrutiny. Alternatively, if the ordinance were seen as regulating speech, that speech would be commercial in nature, and the law would satisfy the lower level of scrutiny applicable to compelled factual commercial disclosures. The court further held that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague, as it provides adequate notice of what is prohibited. The disposition by the Ninth Circuit was to affirm the district court’s denial of injunctive relief. View "MAPLEBEAR INC. V. CITY OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

A group of former and current employees of a staffing agency alleged that the company misclassified recruiters as exempt from state overtime laws and failed to provide required meal and rest breaks. After the employees filed a putative class action in state court, which the company removed to federal court, the parties engaged in over a year of discovery and completed class certification briefing. Shortly after class certification briefing closed, the company implemented a new, mandatory arbitration agreement for internal employees, including the putative class members. This agreement required class members to either quit their jobs or affirmatively opt out of arbitration if they wished to remain in the class, effectively reversing the typical opt-out structure of class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted class certification and, after reviewing the company’s communications about the new arbitration agreement, found them misleading and potentially coercive. The court determined that the communications disparaged class actions, omitted key information, and confused recipients about their rights and deadlines, especially as the emails were sent during a holiday period. Consequently, when the company moved to compel arbitration against class members who had not opted out, the district court denied the motion, relying on its authority under FRCP 23(d) to ensure the fairness of class proceedings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that district courts have broad authority under FRCP 23(d) to refuse to enforce arbitration agreements when a defendant’s conduct undermines the fairness of the class action process, especially where communications are misleading and subvert the opt-out mechanism. The court also held that the arbitration agreement’s delegation provision did not prevent the district court from ruling on enforceability in this context. View "AVERY V. TEKSYSTEMS, INC." on Justia Law

JB Viva Vegas, L.P. challenged the assessment of withdrawal liability imposed by the Nevada Resort Association-International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the US and Canada Local 720 Pension Trust under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA). JB had contributed to the Trust’s pension plan for stagehands working on a theatrical production, which later closed. The Trust asserted withdrawal liability, arguing that its plan no longer qualified for the entertainment industry exception due to a shift in employee work from entertainment to convention-related activities.After JB’s request for review went unanswered, it initiated arbitration. The arbitrator initially ruled in JB’s favor, finding the plan qualified for the entertainment exception and ordering rescission of the withdrawal liability. The Trust then sought to vacate the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The district court vacated the award, reasoning that the relevant year for determining the plan’s status was the year JB withdrew, not when it joined, and remanded to the arbitrator. On remand, the arbitrator granted summary judgment to the Trust, concluding that the MPPAA was ambiguous as to how much entertainment work was required and that the plan did not “primarily” cover entertainment employees because less than half earned most of their wages from entertainment work. The district court affirmed the arbitrator’s decision, granting summary judgment to the Trust.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. The court held that the MPPAA’s entertainment industry exception does not require a minimum amount of entertainment work for an individual to qualify as an “employee in the entertainment industry.” Therefore, the Trust’s plan primarily covers such employees if a majority perform any entertainment work. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case. View "NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION-INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE US AND CANADA LOCAL 720 PENSION TRUST V. JB VIVA VEGAS, LP" on Justia Law

A construction company in southern Nevada ceased contributing to a multiemployer pension plan after it stopped operating in the state. The pension plan’s trustees assessed the company for withdrawal liability, asserting the company owed over $2.8 million under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA). The company challenged the assessment, arguing it was exempt from liability because its asbestos abatement work qualified for the “building and construction industry” exception in the MPPAA. The company pointed out that asbestos abatement involves removing or remediating hazardous materials from buildings, including demolition and substantial alterations to structures.An arbitrator initially ruled in favor of the pension plan’s trustees, interpreting the “building and construction industry” narrowly to include only work that literally builds new structures, and finding that asbestos abatement did not meet this definition. The company then brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada to vacate or modify the arbitration award. The district court rejected the arbitrator’s and trustees’ narrow construction, instead adopting a broader understanding of the industry that includes maintenance, repair, alteration, and demolition. The district court granted summary judgment to the company, holding that its asbestos abatement work qualified for the statutory exception, and ordered the return of payments made toward the assessed liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the phrase “building and construction industry” in the MPPAA incorporates the definition established by the National Labor Relations Board under the Taft-Hartley Act, which includes erection, maintenance, repair, and alteration of buildings and structures. Applying this definition, the court ruled that asbestos abatement is covered by the exception, exempting the company from withdrawal liability. View "WALKER SPECIALTY CONSTR., INC. V. BD. OF TR. OF THE CONSTR. INDUS. AND LABORERS JOINT PENSION TRUST" on Justia Law

Amazon was accused of unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act for refusing to recognize and bargain with the Teamsters Amazon National Negotiating Committee, which represented a group of former Amazon delivery drivers. After Amazon terminated its contract with a delivery service whose drivers were represented by the union, the Teamsters alleged that Amazon and the contractor were joint employers and demanded bargaining rights. Amazon declined, prompting the Teamsters to file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB’s General Counsel filed a complaint against Amazon, alleging threats, retaliation, and refusal to bargain.Following the initiation of the NLRB administrative proceedings, Amazon sued in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking to enjoin the Board from continuing those proceedings. Amazon argued that the Board’s structure and adjudicative procedures were unconstitutional and requested a preliminary injunction. The Teamsters intervened in the case to represent the interests of the drivers. The district court denied Amazon’s motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions in cases involving or growing out of labor disputes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether Amazon’s constitutional challenge “involved or grew out of” a labor dispute, as defined by the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The Ninth Circuit held that both the parties and the underlying dispute satisfied the requirements of the Act, as Amazon’s claims were directly connected to a labor dispute between an employer and a union. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, concluding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue such relief in this context. View "AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" on Justia Law

Jennifer Gates, a former loan officer at VIP Mortgage, claimed that VIP violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Arizona state law by failing to pay her required overtime wages. She alleged that she was made to work more than forty hours per week but was instructed to record only eight-hour days on her timesheet. After her resignation in September 2022, Gates initiated arbitration as required by her employment agreement. VIP responded with counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, but these were later settled, with both parties agreeing to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs for the counterclaims.The arbitration took place under the Federal Arbitration Act, and the arbitrator ultimately issued an award in favor of Gates, granting her unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. Despite the prior stipulation regarding counterclaims, the arbitrator did not distinguish between time spent on Gates’s claims and VIP’s counterclaims when awarding attorneys’ fees. VIP petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Arizona to vacate the award, arguing that the arbitrator erred by awarding attorneys’ fees that included time spent on the counterclaims. The district court found the arbitrator’s decision to be detailed and reasoned, concluding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law or act irrationally.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court held that federal courts may vacate arbitration awards based on a factual error only in rare cases where the error involves a “legally dispositive fact” that was obvious and intentionally ignored by the arbitrator. Here, although the factual error was legally dispositive, the arbitrator’s failure to recall the fee stipulation was not so obvious or intentional as to warrant vacatur. The arbitration award was confirmed. View "VIP MORTGAGE INCORPORATED V. GATES" on Justia Law

Several former employees brought a class action lawsuit against their previous employer, a fast-food chain, challenging three company policies: excessive wage deductions for the Oregon Workers’ Benefit Fund (WBF), failure to pay for interrupted meal breaks longer than 20 minutes, and deductions for non-slip shoes required for work. The WBF overdeductions occurred when the employer failed to adjust employee contribution rates as the state rate decreased, causing employees to pay more than their share. The company also required employees to purchase specific non-slip shoes, from which it received vendor rebates, and allowed the cost to be deducted from wages.In the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs prevailed on the WBF claims, with the court finding at summary judgment that the WBF overdeductions were willful, and that shoe deductions were for the plaintiffs’ benefit, leaving for trial whether the shoes were authorized in writing. The jury awarded substantial penalty wages for the WBF overdeductions, but the district court later reduced the jury’s award relating to shoe deductions, holding that written authorization was a defense. The court also denied class certification for the unpaid break claims, finding individual inquiry necessary, and refused to exclude class members who did not receive mailed notice or to reduce prejudgment interest for alleged plaintiff delay.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on willfulness regarding the WBF overdeductions and on whether the shoe deductions were for the employees’ benefit, requiring both issues be retried by a jury. The appellate court also clarified that written authorization was not a defense to minimum wage and overtime violations relating to shoe deductions. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on the unpaid break claims and on notice and prejudgment interest issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "GESSELE V. JACK IN THE BOX INC." on Justia Law