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

An employee of a California corporation, who was represented by a union and covered by two successive collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), brought two lawsuits in state court against her employer. She alleged violations of various California labor and business statutes, including claims for unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest breaks, sick leave, wage statement inaccuracies, expense reimbursement, and retaliation. The CBAs included provisions regarding pay, leave, breaks, and a dispute resolution process for grievances.The employer removed both cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, arguing that the employee’s claims were preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), which would create federal jurisdiction. The district court determined that only the claims related to untimely wage payments were preempted and thus converted to federal claims under § 301. These federal claims were dismissed because the employee had not exhausted the grievance procedures required by the CBAs. The court found that the remaining state law claims were not preempted, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, and remanded those claims to state court. The employer appealed the remand orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the remand orders because the district court’s remand was not based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in removal procedure. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the remaining state law claims were not preempted by § 301, as they arose from California statutes rather than the CBAs and did not require interpretation of the CBAs. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding the non-preempted claims to state court. The judgment was affirmed. View "RENTERIA-HINOJOSA V. SUNSWEET GROWERS, INC." on Justia Law

Three California-based truck drivers who worked for a national transportation company challenged the legality of their employer’s compensation system. The drivers alleged that the company’s pay plan, which combined hourly wages with a bonus based on certain activities, violated California’s Labor Code by failing to properly compensate for nonproductive time and by not reimbursing necessary business expenses, such as personal cell phone use. They also claimed the company failed to provide accurate wage statements and sought penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and California’s Unfair Competition Law.After the case was removed from state court, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification and granted summary judgment to the employer on most claims. The court found that the pay plan qualified for a statutory “safe harbor” because it paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked, with additional bonuses for certain activities, and thus did not require separate compensation for nonproductive time. The court also found no evidence that the employer knew or should have known about any off-the-clock work. The only claims that proceeded to trial were for failure to reimburse business expenses. At trial, the jury found in favor of the employer, and the court entered judgment accordingly, also awarding costs to the employer.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the employer’s pay plan met the requirements of California Labor Code § 226.2(a)(7)’s safe harbor, as it paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked and provided additional bonuses. The court also found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding off-the-clock work or wage statement violations, and it upheld the district court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and award of costs. View "WILLIAMS V. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC." on Justia Law

A Christian humanitarian organization offered a remote customer service representative position to an applicant who was openly in a same-sex marriage. After the applicant disclosed her marital status while inquiring about parental leave, the organization rescinded the job offer, citing its policy that limits employment to those who comply with its religious standards, including a prohibition on sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman. The applicant, who identifies as Christian and is active in LGBTQ advocacy, sued the organization for discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and marital status under federal and state law.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington initially granted summary judgment to the organization, finding that the church autonomy doctrine barred judicial inquiry into the religiously motivated employment decision. Upon reconsideration, the district court reversed itself, holding that the church autonomy doctrine did not apply because the organization’s hiring policy was facially discriminatory and could be evaluated using neutral legal principles. The district court also rejected the organization’s ministerial exception defense and other constitutional and statutory defenses, ultimately granting summary judgment to the applicant and entering judgment for stipulated damages.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 the ministerial exception applies because customer service representatives at the organization perform key religious functions central to its mission, such as communicating its ministries to donors, engaging in prayer with supporters, and inviting participation in its religious mission. The court concluded that these duties are vital to the organization’s religious purpose, and therefore, the ministerial exception bars the applicant’s employment discrimination claims. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of the organization. View "MCMAHON V. WORLD VISION INC." on Justia Law

Latonia Lister, the first African-American female firefighter in Las Vegas, sued the City of Las Vegas for employment discrimination under Title VII, alleging sex- and race-based discrimination and retaliation. The case stemmed from an incident on April 7, 2019, where her supervisor, Captain Michael Benneman, made offensive comments while feeding a dog. Lister reported the incident and later experienced additional incidents she considered discriminatory and retaliatory. She eventually requested a transfer out of her station.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada presided over the case. At trial, the jury found that the April 7 incident was severe or pervasive and objectively and subjectively offensive but was not motivated by race or gender. The jury concluded that the City did not discriminate against Lister or retaliate against her in violation of Title VII. Despite finding no liability, the jury awarded Lister $150,000 in damages. The district court reconciled the verdict by setting aside the damages award and entered judgment for the City. Lister's motion for a new trial was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the jury instructions were not erroneous and did not contain prejudicial errors. The court found no conflict between the instructions and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not resubmitting the verdict to the jury. The court determined that the district court acted within its discretion by polling the jury to clarify the verdict and reconciling the verdict on its own. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of judgment for the City and the denial of Lister's motion for a new trial. View "LISTER V. CITY OF LAS VEGAS" on Justia Law

Robert Platt, an employee of Sodexo, Inc., sued his employer, claiming that a monthly tobacco surcharge on his employee health insurance premiums violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Platt brought claims on behalf of himself and other plan participants to recover losses under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3), and a breach of fiduciary duty claim on behalf of the employer-sponsored health insurance plan (the Plan) for losses under ERISA § 502(a)(2). Sodexo sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision it unilaterally added to the Plan after Platt joined.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Sodexo’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement because Sodexo unilaterally modified the Plan to add the arbitration provision without Platt’s consent. The court found that Platt did not agree to arbitrate his claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that an employer cannot create a valid arbitration agreement by unilaterally modifying an ERISA-governed plan to add an arbitration provision without obtaining consent from the relevant party. The court held that Platt is the relevant consenting party for claims under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3) and that he did not consent to arbitration because he did not receive sufficient notice of the arbitration provision. However, the court held that the Plan is the relevant consenting party for the breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA § 502(a)(2) and that the Plan consented to arbitration.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Sodexo’s motion to compel arbitration for Platt’s claims under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3). It reversed in part the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration for the breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA § 502(a)(2) and remanded for the district court to consider Platt’s unconscionability defenses and the severability of the representative action waiver and any other arbitration clauses found unconscionable. View "PLATT V. SODEXO, S.A." on Justia Law

The case involves an executive order issued by President Trump, which excluded over 40 federal agencies and subdivisions from collective bargaining requirements, citing national security concerns. The plaintiffs, six unions representing federal employees, argued that the executive order constituted First Amendment retaliation, was ultra vires, violated Fifth Amendment procedural due process, abrogated contractual property rights, and violated the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.The Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the executive order, focusing on the First Amendment retaliation claim. The district court found that the plaintiffs had raised serious questions about whether the order was retaliatory, citing statements from a White House Fact Sheet that criticized federal unions. The court concluded that the balance of hardships and public interest favored the plaintiffs, as the order threatened union operations and collective bargaining rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the government's request for an emergency stay of the district court's preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit granted the stay, finding that the government was likely to succeed on the merits of the retaliation claim. The court concluded that the executive order and the accompanying Fact Sheet demonstrated a focus on national security, and that the President would have issued the order regardless of the plaintiffs' protected conduct. The court also found that the government would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, as the injunction impeded the government's ability to manage national security-related functions. The court determined that the public interest favored granting the stay to preserve the President's authority in national security matters. View "American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump" on Justia Law

Rodney Burch, the former Public Works Director for the City of Chubbuck, Idaho, filed a lawsuit against the City and Mayor Kevin England, alleging First Amendment retaliation and violations of Idaho state law. Burch claimed that adverse employment actions were taken against him due to his protected speech, which included criticisms of England’s policies and performance, advocacy for a city administrator position, and displaying a political yard sign supporting England’s opponent during the mayoral election.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Burch’s criticisms and advocacy were made pursuant to his official duties and thus were not protected speech under the First Amendment. However, the court recognized that Burch’s political yard sign was protected speech. Despite this, the court concluded that Burch failed to establish a First Amendment violation because the defendants had adequate justification for their actions and would have taken the same actions regardless of the yard sign.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Burch’s criticisms and advocacy were unprotected as they were part of his official duties. The court also found that while Burch’s yard sign was protected speech, the defendants had legitimate reasons for their actions, including Burch’s unprotected speech and the need to maintain effective city operations. Additionally, the court held that Burch’s state law claim was time-barred as the adverse employment actions occurred outside the statute of limitations.In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Burch’s First Amendment retaliation claim and Idaho state law claim both failed as a matter of law. View "Burch v. City of Chubbuck" on Justia Law

In this case, Columbia Legal Services represented farmworkers in a class action against Stemilt AG Services, LLC, alleging forced labor and trafficking. During the litigation, the district court issued a protective order limiting Columbia's use of discovered information outside the case. The order required Columbia to seek court approval before using any discovery materials in other advocacy efforts.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington presided over the initial case. The court issued two protective orders during the discovery process. The first order protected sensitive employment data from the Washington State Employment Security Division. The second order, which is the subject of this appeal, restricted Columbia from using Stemilt's financial and employment records in other advocacy without prior court approval. The district court adopted this order to prevent Columbia from using discovered information outside the litigation, citing concerns about Columbia's intentions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Columbia had standing to appeal the protective order because it directly affected Columbia's ability to use discovered information in its advocacy work. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a broad and undifferentiated protective order without finding "good cause" or identifying specific harm that would result from public disclosure. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's protective order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized that discovery is presumptively public and that protective orders require a showing of specific prejudice or harm. View "COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES V. STEMILT AG SERVICES, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of current and former employees of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. alleged that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding wages for tipped workers. They sought preliminary certification for a collective action to include all servers in states where Cracker Barrel attempts to take a tip credit over the last three years. Cracker Barrel objected, arguing that notice should not be sent to employees who are subject to arbitration agreements or to out-of-state employees with no ties to Arizona.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary certification and approved notice to the proposed group, including employees who might have entered into arbitration agreements and out-of-state employees. The court decided to reserve judgment on the arbitration issue until the second stage of proceedings and concluded that nationwide notice was permissible based on the participation of one Arizona-based plaintiff.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in following the two-step procedure for preliminary certification. It also held that where the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement are in dispute, the district court is not required to determine the arbitrability of absent employees' claims before authorizing notice. However, the Ninth Circuit joined other circuits in holding that the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California applies to FLSA collective actions in federal court. This means that for specific personal jurisdiction, the district court must assess whether each opt-in plaintiff's claim is sufficiently connected to the defendant's activities in the forum state. The court vacated the district court's order authorizing nationwide notice and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "HARRINGTON V. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC." on Justia Law

A jurisdictional dispute arose between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) over maintenance work at SSA Terminals in the Port of Seattle. Both unions claimed the right to perform the work under their respective collective bargaining agreements. SSA initially assigned the work to ILWU, but IAM threatened economic action, prompting SSA to seek a resolution from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB assigned the work to IAM, leading ILWU to pursue a grievance against SSA, which an arbitrator upheld.SSA then filed an unfair labor practice charge against ILWU, alleging that ILWU's pursuit of the grievance violated section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act. ILWU defended itself by invoking the work-preservation defense, which protects primary union activity. The NLRB rejected this defense, stating it was not applicable in pure jurisdictional disputes where multiple unions have valid contractual claims. The NLRB ordered ILWU to cease and desist from pursuing the maintenance work at Terminal 5.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the NLRB's position was foreclosed by its previous decision in International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. NLRB (Kinder Morgan), which established that a valid work-preservation objective provides a complete defense against alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(D). The court vacated the NLRB's order and remanded the case for the NLRB to evaluate the merits of ILWU's work-preservation defense. The court also denied the petitions for review by IAM and the NLRB's cross-petition for enforcement. View "International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law