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

A dancer who regularly performed at a Portland strip club called Sassy’s alleged that the club’s owners and managers misclassified dancers as independent contractors, thereby violating wage and hour provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). After the dancer filed a lawsuit regarding these alleged violations, one of the club’s partners, who also managed another club called Dante’s, canceled the dancer’s scheduled performance at Dante’s, explicitly citing the lawsuit as the reason. The dancer then amended the complaint to include a claim that this cancellation constituted unlawful retaliation under the FLSA.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court reasoned that the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision only provides a private right of action for retaliation committed by a current employer, and thus the dancer needed to have been employed by Dante’s at the time of the alleged retaliatory act. The court also found that the wage-related claims were time-barred and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision does not require the retaliator to be the plaintiff’s current employer, nor does it require the plaintiff to have been employed by the retaliator at the time of the alleged retaliation. Instead, the statute covers retaliation by any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. The court remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the dancer was an employee of Sassy’s under the “economic realities” test and whether the cancellation of the performance constituted retaliation. The court also reinstated the state law claims for further proceedings. View "HOLLIS V. R&R RESTAURANTS, INC" on Justia Law

Several individuals, representing a class, challenged a health insurance company’s refusal to cover gender-affirming care for transgender individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The company, acting as a third-party administrator for employer-sponsored, self-funded health plans, denied coverage for such treatments based on explicit plan exclusions requested by the employer sponsors. Some plaintiffs also alleged that they were denied coverage for treatments that would have been covered for other diagnoses, such as precocious puberty, but were denied solely because of the concurrent diagnosis of gender dysphoria.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington certified the class and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The district court rejected the company’s arguments that it was not subject to Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act because its third-party administrator activities were not federally funded, that it was merely following employer instructions under ERISA, and that it was shielded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The district court also found that the exclusions constituted sex-based discrimination under Section 1557.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the company is subject to Section 1557, that ERISA does not require administrators to enforce unlawful plan terms, and that RFRA does not provide a defense in this context. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court’s analysis of sex-based discrimination was undermined by the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which clarified the application of sex discrimination standards to exclusions for gender dysphoria treatment. The Ninth Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider whether, under Skrmetti, the exclusions at issue may still constitute unlawful discrimination, particularly in cases involving pretext or proxy discrimination or where plaintiffs had other qualifying diagnoses. View "PRITCHARD V. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS" on Justia Law

North Mountain Foothills Apartments (NMFA), a company managing a large apartment complex in Phoenix, Arizona, hired Jasper Press as a maintenance technician during a period of increased workload due to a heatwave. Press discussed his compensation and the poor conditions at the complex with several coworkers. Management became aware that other employees knew about Press’s pay and housing benefits, leading to a meeting where Press was reprimanded for these discussions and told not to talk about pest issues with residents. The day after this meeting, Press was terminated, allegedly for failing to complete work orders. Press filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging unfair labor practices.An administrative law judge held an evidentiary hearing and found that NMFA violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating Press about his wage discussions, issuing overly broad directives restricting such discussions, threatening reprisals, and discharging Press for engaging in protected activities. The NLRB adopted these findings and ordered remedies including reinstatement and back pay for Press. NMFA appealed, raising for the first time constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure and process, and also contested the Board’s factual findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to consider NMFA’s unexhausted constitutional claims because such structural challenges are not suited to agency resolution. The court rejected NMFA’s Article II removal protection challenge for lack of demonstrated harm, found no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in NLRB proceedings, and held that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions within the NLRB does not violate due process. On the merits, the court found substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that Press was discharged for protected activity and granted enforcement of the NLRB’s order. View "NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. NORTH MOUNTAIN FOOTHILLS APARTMENTS, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of building engineers and craftsmen represented by a union worked at several stores operated by a large retail company. After the company and the union failed to reach agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement, the union members voted to reject the company’s final offer and began a strike. The company’s final offer expired, and after three months on strike, the union ended the strike and made an unconditional offer for its members to return to work. The company then locked out the union members who reported for work, stating it would not reinstate them until a new agreement was in place. The union filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that the lockout was an unfair labor practice.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing and found that the company violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by locking out employees without providing a timely, clear, and complete offer setting forth the conditions necessary to avoid the lockout. The ALJ recommended reinstatement and make-whole relief for affected employees. The NLRB adopted the ALJ’s findings, modifying the remedy to include compensation for any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms resulting from the lockout.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed petitions from both the union and the company, as well as the NLRB’s application for enforcement. The court held that it had jurisdiction, found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB’s conclusion that the lockout was unlawful, and determined that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion in fashioning remedies. The court enforced the NLRB’s order, holding that the company’s lockout violated the Act because employees were not clearly and fully informed of the conditions for reinstatement, and that the NLRB’s make-whole relief, as ordered, was within its authority. The court denied both the union’s and the company’s petitions for review and granted enforcement of the NLRB’s order. View "MACY'S INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" on Justia Law

A group of more than 80 former at-will employees of a nonprofit healthcare system in Washington were terminated after refusing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination mandate issued by their employer, which was in response to an August 2021 proclamation by the state’s governor requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated. The employees alleged that, at the time, only an “investigational” vaccine authorized for emergency use was available, and they claimed their rights were violated when they were penalized for refusing it. They also argued they were not adequately informed of their right to refuse the vaccine.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington first dismissed all claims against the governor, then dismissed the federal claims against the healthcare system, and denied the employees’ motions for leave to amend and reconsideration. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against the healthcare system.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that none of the employees’ statutory or non-constitutional claims, which were based on various federal statutes, regulations, agreements, and international treaties, alleged specific and definite rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court also found that the employees’ constitutional claims failed: the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim was foreclosed by Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho; the procedural due process claim failed because at-will employment is not a constitutionally protected property interest; and the equal protection claim failed because the mandate survived rational-basis review. The court further held that amendment of the federal claims would be futile and upheld the district court’s dismissal of the state law claims against the governor and its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the healthcare system. View "Curtis v. Inslee" on Justia Law

Three former employees of a large convenience store chain alleged that they were denied the opportunity to apply for a promotion to West Coast regional director because of their age. All three had strong performance records and had expressed interest in advancement. When the position became available in early 2020, the company did not announce the vacancy or solicit applications, as it had done in the past. Instead, it selected a younger candidate, who had previously served as a regional director in another area, without giving the plaintiffs a chance to apply. At the time, the plaintiffs were in their mid-50s, while the selected candidate was 45.After the plaintiffs filed suit in California state court, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because they had not applied for the position. The court also found that, even if a prima facie case existed, the employer had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, and the plaintiffs had not shown that this reason was pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that, when an employer does not announce a vacancy or solicit applications, plaintiffs are not required to show that they applied for the position to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The court also clarified that, although a ten-year age difference is the usual threshold for a “substantial” age gap, plaintiffs can overcome a smaller gap by providing evidence that age was a significant factor in the employer’s decision. The court found that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of pretext and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "CALDRONE V. CIRCLE K STORES INC." on Justia Law

An employee of a large retail company alleged that, during her six-week employment at a California store, she was denied meal and rest breaks, not paid for overtime, did not receive proper wage statements, and was required to use her personal cell phone for work without reimbursement. She filed suit in state court, asserting individual, putative class, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims for violations of California’s Labor Code. The company removed the case to federal court.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed several of the plaintiff’s class claims and denied class certification for the remaining class claim. The plaintiff continued to pursue her individual and PAGA claims. Shortly before trial, the parties settled the individual claims for $22,000 under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, with the plaintiff dismissing her PAGA claims without prejudice. The settlement allowed the plaintiff to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for work performed on her individual claims, as permitted by law. The district court awarded the plaintiff $297,799 in attorneys’ fees and $14,630 in costs, after she voluntarily reduced her fee request by nearly half to exclude time spent on class certification and legal assistants’ work.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the section 998 settlement agreement did not preclude the plaintiff from seeking attorneys’ fees for work on related claims under the standard set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, as long as those claims were intertwined with her individual claims. However, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide a clear explanation for the fee award. The court vacated the fee award and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to provide a concise but clear explanation for any future fee determination. View "Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

A hospital employee in Oregon, who identified as a practicing Christian, requested a religious exemption from her employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, citing her belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and that she must avoid substances that could harm her body. The employer granted her exemption from vaccination but required her to wear personal protective equipment and undergo weekly antigen testing using a nasal swab treated with ethylene oxide. The employee objected to the testing, claiming her research showed the swab was carcinogenic and that using it would violate her religious duty to protect her body. She requested alternative accommodations, such as saliva testing or full-time remote work, but the employer denied these requests and ultimately terminated her employment when she refused to comply.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that her objection to the testing was based on secular, medical concerns rather than a bona fide religious belief. The court concluded that while her general belief in protecting her body as a temple was religious, her specific objection to the nasal swab was rooted in her personal interpretation of medical research.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that to state a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII and Oregon law, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the specific accommodation request is rooted in a bona fide religious belief, not merely a secular or personal preference. The court found that the employee’s complaint did not sufficiently connect her religious beliefs to her objection to antigen testing, as her concerns were based on her own medical judgment rather than religious doctrine. The court declined to adopt a more lenient pleading standard and affirmed the dismissal with prejudice. View "DETWILER V. MID-COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER" on Justia Law

A civilian employee of the Defense Logistics Agency in Hawaii, who had served in the National Guard and developed post-traumatic stress disorder, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. After a series of workplace incidents, the agency suspended him indefinitely, citing concerns about his access to sensitive information. The employee claimed that the agency failed to provide reasonable accommodations and improperly deemed him a direct threat.The employee filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint, which eventually led to a final agency decision (FAD) against him. The agency transmitted the FAD and related documents electronically using a secure system, but made several errors in providing the necessary passphrase to decrypt the document. As a result, the employee’s attorney was unable to access the FAD for several weeks, despite repeated requests for assistance and clarification. The attorney finally received an accessible, decrypted copy of the FAD by email on December 5, 2022. The employee filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 88 days later. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of Defense, finding the complaint untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the initial electronic transmission, and denied equitable tolling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court held that the 90-day limitations period for filing suit under the Rehabilitation Act did not begin until the attorney received effective notice of the agency’s decision, which occurred when he received the decrypted FAD on December 5. Alternatively, the court held that equitable tolling was warranted because the attorney diligently sought access to the FAD and was prevented by extraordinary circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits. View "ASUNCION V. HEGSETH" on Justia Law

Eight firefighters employed by a regional fire and rescue agency in Washington State requested religious exemptions from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued in August 2021 by the state’s governor, which required healthcare providers to be vaccinated. The fire agency, which provides emergency medical and fire services to a large population, including a state prison, allowed employees to seek religious accommodations. After reviewing the requests and consulting with union representatives, the agency determined it could not accommodate unvaccinated firefighters in their roles without imposing an undue hardship on its operations, citing health and safety concerns, operational burdens, and potential financial risks. The firefighters were offered the option to use accrued leave or take a leave of absence, with the possibility of returning if the mandate changed.The firefighters sued in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Washington Law Against Discrimination for failure to accommodate their religious beliefs. The district court assumed the firefighters had bona fide religious objections but found that accommodating their requests would impose an undue hardship on the agency, given the increased risk of COVID-19 transmission, the large number of exemption requests, and the inadequacy of proposed alternatives such as masking and testing. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the fire agency.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that, under the standard clarified in Groff v. DeJoy, an employer demonstrates undue hardship when the burden of accommodation is substantial in the context of its business. The court found that the fire agency had shown substantial health, operational, and financial costs associated with accommodating the exemption requests, and that the proposed alternatives were insufficient. The summary judgment for the agency was affirmed. View "PETERSEN V. SNOHOMISH REGIONAL FIRE AND RESCUE" on Justia Law