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

Ali Bahreman, a flight attendant for Allegiant Air, challenged the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Allegiant and the Transport Workers Union (Union). The CBA required employees to either pay union dues or agency fees to maintain seniority-based bidding privileges for work schedules. Bahreman chose not to pay any fees and subsequently lost his bidding privileges. He argued that this arrangement violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by coercing employees to join the Union, deviating from the employment-termination remedy, and breaching the Union's duty of fair representation.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Allegiant and the Union. The court found that the CBA did not violate the RLA's anti-coercion provision, as it did not induce employees to join the Union. The court also held that the RLA does not prohibit collective bargaining agreements with terms other than those explicitly permitted by the Act. Additionally, the court determined that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation, as it enforced the CBA equally among all members of the bargaining unit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the RLA does not prohibit a collective bargaining agreement that conditions seniority-based bidding privileges on the payment of union dues or agency fees. The court found that the CBA did not induce union membership, as it treated union members and nonmembers alike regarding payment requirements. The court also concluded that the CBA's terms were permissible under the RLA and that the Union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in enforcing the agreement. View "Bahreman v. Allegiant Air, LLC" on Justia Law

Karl Hansen sued Tesla, Inc., its CEO Elon Musk, and U.S. Security Associates (USSA), alleging retaliation for reporting misconduct at Tesla. Hansen, initially hired by Tesla, was later employed by USSA. He reported thefts, narcotics trafficking, and improper contracts at Tesla, and filed a report with the SEC. After Musk saw Hansen at the Gigafactory and demanded his removal, USSA reassigned Hansen, which he claimed was retaliatory.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada ordered most of Hansen’s claims to arbitration, except his Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) claim. The arbitrator dismissed Hansen’s non-SOX claims, finding no contractual right to work at the Gigafactory and no reasonable belief of securities law violations. The district court confirmed the arbitration award and dismissed Hansen’s SOX claim, holding that the arbitrator’s findings precluded relitigation of issues essential to the SOX claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that while an arbitrator’s decision cannot preclude a SOX claim, a confirmed arbitral award can preclude relitigation of issues underlying such a claim. The court found that the arbitrator’s decision, which concluded Hansen had no reasonable belief of securities law violations, precluded his SOX claim. The court also held that the arbitrator’s findings on Hansen’s state law claims had a preclusive effect, as they were confirmed by the district court. Thus, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Hansen’s complaint. View "Hansen v. Musk" on Justia Law

Thomas Mooney, the plaintiff, was employed as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) for Dr. Douglas Fife, Heather Fife, and Fife Dermatology, PC, doing business as Vivida Dermatology. Mooney raised concerns about improper billing practices at Vivida. After a conversation with Dr. Ken Landow, a dermatologist from another practice, Vivida terminated Mooney's employment, citing unauthorized disclosure of confidential information in violation of his employment agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Vivida on all three of Mooney's claims: False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that Mooney's reporting of billing irregularities did not put Vivida on notice of potentially protected conduct under the FCA. It also found that Mooney had violated the confidentiality provision of his employment agreement and that his claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing failed because he did not argue that Vivida literally complied with the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment. The appellate court held that the district court erred in applying the relevant substantive law for Mooney's FCA retaliation claim and failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mooney for his breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. The Ninth Circuit clarified that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to FCA retaliation claims and that the Moore test for protected conduct continues to apply following the 2009 amendment to the FCA. The court concluded that Mooney engaged in protected conduct, satisfied the notice requirement, and established genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Vivida's reasons for his termination were pretextual. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MOONEY V. FIFE" on Justia Law

Staff nurses employed by the City and County of San Francisco alleged that the City violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying them time-and-a-half for overtime work. The City argued that the nurses were exempt from this requirement under the FLSA's professional-capacity exemption, claiming that the nurses were paid on a salary basis. The nurses contended that they were paid on an hourly basis, as their annual compensation was divided into hourly rates and they were paid only for hours worked.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the annual pay figures published in the salary ordinance provided definitive evidence that the nurses were compensated on a salary basis. The court found the nurses' hourly pay rates to be an administrative tool and dismissed the nurses' claims of improper pay deductions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court erred by relying on the salary ordinance and not examining how the nurses were actually paid. The proper focus for the salary basis test is whether an employee receives a predetermined amount of compensation on a weekly or less frequent basis. The court found that material factual questions remained regarding whether the City satisfied the salary basis test in practice. Specifically, the court noted discrepancies in the payroll data that suggested the nurses might not have received their predetermined compensation in certain pay periods. The court also found that the City did not provide evidence of reimbursing the nurses for any improper deductions, which precluded the use of the "window of correction" defense. The case was remanded for further proceedings to resolve these factual issues. View "SILLOWAY V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Jose Emilio Ronderos, applied for a job with USF Reddaway, Inc. and Yellow Corporation (collectively, "Reddaway") and was required to sign an arbitration agreement as part of the application process. Ronderos later filed employment-related claims against Reddaway, alleging age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and other violations under California law. Ronderos claimed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Reddaway's motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, involved significant oppression, and contained a substantively opaque cost-splitting provision. The court also found that the agreement was substantively unconscionable due to its one-sided filing provision and preliminary injunction carve-out, which unfairly favored Reddaway. The district court declined to sever the unconscionable provisions and enforce the remainder of the agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. It held that the agreement involved significant oppression and some surprise, making it procedurally unconscionable. The court also found that the one-sided filing provision and preliminary injunction carve-out were substantively unconscionable. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the unconscionable provisions and affirmed the denial of Reddaway's motion to compel arbitration. View "Ronderos v. USF Reddaway, Inc." on Justia Law

Noncitizen laborers were brought into the United States to work for construction subcontractor defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants fraudulently applied for B-1 employment visas, which cost less than the petition-based visas they should have applied for, thereby violating the False Claims Act (FCA). Additionally, one plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Prevention Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) by threatening prosecution and suing him to coerce other workers to continue working.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the defendants did not have an "established duty" to pay for the more expensive visas because they never applied for them, thus no legal obligation existed under the FCA. The court also dismissed the TVPRA claim, finding that the plaintiff did not allege that the defendants' actions coerced him to provide any labor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the defendants had no "established duty" to pay for the more expensive visas since they did not apply for them, and thus did not violate the FCA. The court also upheld the dismissal of the TVPRA claim, concluding that the plaintiff did not state a claim because the defendants' actions did not coerce him to provide any labor. The court's main holding was that potential liability for applying for the wrong visas does not constitute an "established duty" to pay under the FCA, and that the TVPRA claim failed because the plaintiff was not coerced into providing labor. The decision was affirmed. View "LESNIK V. ISM VUZEM D.O.O." on Justia Law

Curtis Rookaird, represented by Paul Parker, was terminated by BNSF Railway Company after performing an air-brake test, which he argued was a protected activity under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). Rookaird claimed his termination was retaliatory. Initially, a jury found in Rookaird’s favor, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the verdict and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider whether the air-brake test contributed to BNSF’s decision to terminate him. On remand, the district court conducted a bench trial and ruled in favor of BNSF, concluding that while the air-brake test contributed to the termination, it did so "very little."The district court found that BNSF had conceded the air-brake test contributed to Rookaird’s termination but ruled that BNSF was entitled to an affirmative defense by showing the test contributed minimally. The court also upheld BNSF’s evidentiary rulings, excluding certain testimony and admitting comparator evidence. Rookaird appealed, arguing the district court misapplied the FRSA and erred in its evidentiary rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it vacated the district court’s judgment on the affirmative defense issue. The Ninth Circuit held that under the FRSA, an employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated the employee absent the protected activity, not merely that the protected activity contributed "very little" to the decision. The case was remanded for the district court to determine if BNSF met this burden, given that the air-brake test could not contribute even in part to the termination decision. View "Parker v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

Five corporate jet pilots worked for Sands Aviation, LLC and Las Vegas Sands Corp., earning between $125,000 and $160,000 annually. Their primary duties included ensuring the safety of passengers, crew, and aircraft, which involved complex decision-making and discretionary actions. The pilots were required to be on call for pop-up flights, typically scheduled 24 hours in advance, and had to respond to flight notifications within 30 minutes. Despite being on call, they engaged in various personal activities and secondary employment.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada held a bench trial and ruled in favor of Sands. The court found that the pilots were highly compensated employees performing primarily non-manual labor and making significant discretionary decisions, thus exempting them from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime requirements. Additionally, the court determined that the pilots' on-call time did not constitute work requiring overtime pay because they could freely engage in personal activities during this time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the pilots were exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements as highly compensated employees performing non-manual labor and making significant discretionary decisions. The court also held that the pilots' on-call time did not count as work for overtime purposes, as they were free to engage in personal activities and there was no agreement suggesting that on-call time was compensable. Thus, the pilots did not meet the 40-hour workweek threshold for overtime pay. View "KENNEDY V. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORPORATION" on Justia Law

A group of non-convicted individuals detained in Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail filed a lawsuit against Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Alameda County, and Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern. The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay under California’s Labor Code for work performed without pay for Aramark while detained. The defendants moved to dismiss these claims, arguing that the plaintiffs' compensation was governed by the California Penal Code, which allows counties to pay prisoners at rates below minimum wage.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the minimum wage and overtime claims, holding that the California Penal Code did not preclude non-convicted detainees working for a private company from the protections of the Labor Code. The district court allowed the plaintiffs' claims to proceed, leading the defendants to file an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and certified a question to the California Supreme Court regarding whether non-convicted detainees working for a private company in county jails have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. The California Supreme Court responded that such detainees do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under Section 1194 of the California Labor Code. The court clarified that section 4019.3 of the California Penal Code applies broadly to all county inmates, including pretrial detainees, and does not depend on the identity of the employer.Based on the California Supreme Court's response, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' minimum wage and overtime claims. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims failed under the current law and reversed the district court's decision. View "RUELAS V. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA" on Justia Law

A staff psychologist at a federal prison discovered that a corrections lieutenant operated an Instagram account with sexually offensive content, some of which targeted her. When she reported this to prison leadership, her complaints were dismissed, and the lieutenant's posts became more aggressive. Despite her repeated complaints, the prison's response was slow and ineffective, leading her to feel unsafe and eventually leave her job.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the government, concluding that the psychologist had not shown an objectively hostile work environment and that the prison had taken reasonable remedial actions. The court limited its consideration to five specific posts and determined that these did not occur within the physical workplace.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court erred by not considering the totality of the circumstances, including the broader context of the harassment and the prison's inadequate response. The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that evidence of sexually harassing conduct, even if not expressly targeting the plaintiff, and non-sexual conduct that could be seen as retaliatory or intimidating, should be considered. The court also rejected the notion that only conduct occurring inside the physical workplace is actionable, especially given the prevalence of social media. The court found that the plaintiff had raised triable issues of fact regarding the hostile work environment and the prison's failure to take prompt and effective remedial measures. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "OKONOWSKY V. GARLAND" on Justia Law