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

Plaintiffs, a group of Federal contractor employees and Federal employees working for the Department of Energy, challenged two Executive Orders, Executive Orders 14,042 and 14,043 (EOs), issued in September 2021. 1 Those EOs mandated COVID-19 vaccination for Federal contractor employees and Federal employees, respectively. They also provided for legally required medical or religious exemptions. Plaintiffs challenged the EOs as ultra vires exercises of presidential power in violation of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (Procurement Act), the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Procurement Policy Act), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), the major questions doctrine, and general constitutional federalism constraints. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief to address their allegedly “imminent and wrongful terminations” for failure to comply with the vaccination requirements. The district court held that Plaintiffs who had submitted religious and medical exemptions but who had not yet completed the exemption request process did not have claims ripe for adjudication. The district court then dismissed the operative Second Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and without leave to amend.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed as moot in part. The panel concluded that the case was moot as to all non-RFRA claims. The vaccine mandate exemption processes that the Plaintiffs challenged were premised on the revoked EOs. The panel held that it could not provide relief from EOs and exemption processes that no longer exist. Accordingly, no live controversy remained between the parties. The panel further concluded that Plaintiffs’ claims for damages under RFRA were precluded by sovereign immunity. View "DAVID DONOVAN, ET AL V. BRIAN VANCE" on Justia Law

The eight plaintiffs in this action (collectively, “Sharp”) are former employees of apparel manufacturer S&S Activewear (“S&S”). Seven are women, and one is a man. Sharp alleges that S&S permitted its managers and employees to routinely play “sexually graphic, violently misogynistic” music throughout its 700,000-square-foot warehouse in Reno, Nevada. Sharp eventually filed suit, alleging that the music and related conduct created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The district court granted S&S’s motion to dismiss and denied leave to amend the music claim, reasoning that the music’s offensiveness to both men and women and audibility throughout the warehouse nullified any discriminatory potential. The court countenanced S&S’s argument that the fact that “both men and women were offended by the work environment” doomed Sharp’s Title VII claim.   The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal. The panel disagreed with the district court’s reasoning that the music’s offensiveness to both men and women and audibility throughout the warehouse nullified any discriminatory potential. The panel vacated the district court’s dismissal, with prejudice and without leave to amend, of Plaintiffs’ music-based claim and instructed the district court to reconsider, on remand, the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ pleadings in light of two key principles: First, harassment, whether aural or visual, need not be directly targeted at a particular plaintiff in order to pollute a workplace and give rise to a Title VII claim. Second, the challenged conduct’s offensiveness to multiple genders is not a certain bar to stating a Title VII claim. View "STEPHANIE SHARP, ET AL V. S&S ACTIVEWEAR, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Appellants are agricultural workers hired by strawberry growers (“the Growers”) to pick the fruit that was then turned over to the Appellees Red Blossom Sales, Inc. and Better Produce, Inc. (“the Marketers”) for distribution. Appellants sought to hold the Marketers liable for their wages as “client employers.” The Marketers cooled and sold the berries principally to large retail grocery chains. The Marketers conducted their cooling and distribution operations on premises that were close to but separate from the farms. The Growers stopped paying Appellants and later filed for bankruptcy. Appellants sued the Growers and the Marketers as joint employers under California and federal law. Appellants also sued the Marketers as client employers under California Labor Code Section 2810.3. The district court ruled for the Marketers on all theories. Appellants appeal only with respect to the Marketers’ liability under Section 2810.3.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that Appellants were not performing labor within the Marketers’ “usual course of business” as defined by the statute. That term is defined as “the regular and customary work of a business, performed within or upon the premises or worksite of the client employer.” Given the particular facts of this case, the court concluded that Appellants’ work took place on the farms where the strawberries were grown, not on the premises or worksites of the Marketers. The Marketers are, therefore, not liable as client employers under California Labor Code Section 2810.3. View "LUIS MORALES-GARCIA, ET AL V. BETTER PRODUCE, INC., ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought an action against The Gap, Inc. and its directors “derivatively on behalf of Gap.” Plaintiff’s action alleged that Gap violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-9 by making false or misleading statements to shareholders about its commitment to diversity. Gap’s bylaws contain a forum-selection clause stating that the Delaware Court of Chancery “shall be the sole and exclusive forum for . . . any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the Corporation.” Lee nevertheless brought her putative derivative action in a California district court. The district court granted Gap’s motion to dismiss Lee’s complaint on forum nonconveniens ground.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The en banc court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that her right to bring a derivative Section 14(a) action is stymied by Gap’s forum-selection clause, which alone amounts to Gap “waiving compliance with a provision of [the Exchange Act] or of any rule or regulation thereunder.” The en banc court explained that the Supreme Court made clear in Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987), that Section 29(a) forbids only the waiver of substantive obligations imposed by the Exchange Act, not the waiver of a particular procedure for enforcing such duties. McMahon also disposes of Plaintiff’s argument that Gap’s forum-selection clause is void under Section 29(a) because it waives compliance with Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act, which gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over Section 14(a) claims. View "NOELLE LEE V. ROBERT FISHER, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 lawsuit against Defendants—each present or former employees of the California Department of Public Health—on the grounds that Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive Plaintiffs of certain rights secured by the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged a “stigma-plus” due process claim under Section 1983 on the grounds that Defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard before publishing a purportedly erroneous investigative report on an unsuccessful cardiac surgery. They contend that the publication of this report caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of protected employment-related interests. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish several necessary elements of their claim and, thus, dismissed the action in its entirety; Plaintiffs challenged each of the district court’s negative elemental findings.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that the district court’s negative causation finding was plausible in light of record evidence establishing; the timing and conclusions of the hospital’s internal investigations, the independent actions of a hospital employee to alert the family to potential malfeasance by Plaintiff, the family and estate’s pursuit of legal action; the accounts of key percipient witnesses to the surgery as part of the malpractice case; and the sizable malpractice judgment awarded against Plaintiff. The panel thus sustained the district court’s determination that Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants’ conduct was the actionable cause of the claimed injury and concluded that, at a minimum, Plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite causation element of their “stigma-plus” due process claim under Section 1983. View "PERVAIZ CHAUDHRY, ET AL V. TOMAS ARAGON, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff previously worked for the Springfield Utility Board (SUB). As part of an internal investigation into Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct, SUB restricted Plaintiff from speaking with potential witnesses and other SUB employees regarding the subject of the investigation while it was underway. Plaintiff sued SUB, certain SUB employees, and SUB’s retained counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the investigation-related speech restrictions violated the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and Plaintiff appealed.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The panel held that the communication restriction complained of by Plaintiff did not violate the First Amendment because it did not limit Plaintiff’s ability to speak about matters of public concern. Nothing in Defendants’ instructions barred him from speaking about any alleged mismanagement at the Springfield Utility Board or other topics that would potentially relate to a matter of public concern. Rather, the restrictions merely barred him from personally discussing his own alleged violation of Springfield Utility Board policies—a matter of private, personal concern—with potential witnesses or fellow Springfield Utility Board employees. View "TODD ROBERTS V. SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BOARD, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission (“CJTC”), the City of Spokane, and others (collectively, the “CJTC Defendants”) moved for summary judgment in the district court on Plaintiff’s state law claims, asserting that they are entitled to statutory immunity under Wash. Rev. Code (“RCW”) 43.101.390(1). The district court denied summary judgment, and the CJTC Defendants appealed.   The Ninth Circuit certified to the Washington Supreme Court the following question: What is the scope of immunity provided by RCW 43.101.390? Specifically, does the provision grant immunity for intentional torts committed in the course of administering the Basic Law Enforcement Academy? View "JOHN CRUZ V. CITY OF SPOKANE, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought to represent a class of individuals, known as Amazon Flex drivers, claiming damages and injunctive relief for alleged privacy violations by Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”). Plaintiff contended that Amazon monitored and wiretapped the drivers’ conversations when they communicated during off hours in closed Facebook groups. The district court denied Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the applicable arbitration clause in a 2016 Terms of Service Agreement (“2016 TOS”). Amazon appealed, arguing that the district court should have applied the broader arbitration clause in a 2019 Terms of Service Agreement (“2019 TOS”) and that even if the arbitration clause in the 2016 TOS applied, this dispute fell within its scope.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration. Under California law and principles of contract law, the burden is on Amazon, as the party seeking arbitration, to show that it provided notice of a new TOS and that there was mutual assent to the contractual agreement to arbitrate. The panel held that there was no evidence that the email allegedly sent to drivers adequately notified drivers of the update. The district court, therefore, correctly held that the arbitration provision in the 2016 TOS still governed the parties’ relationship. The panel concluded that because Amazon’s alleged misconduct existed independently of the contract and therefore fell outside the scope of the arbitration provision in the 2016 TOS, the district court correctly denied Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration. View "DRICKEY JACKSON V. AMZN" on Justia Law

Plaintiff a devout Jehovah’s Witness, objected to California’s loyalty oath because she believed it would violate her religious beliefs by requiring her to pledge primary allegiance to the federal and state governments and to affirm her willingness to take up arms to defend them. he Controller’s Office rejected this proposal and rescinded the job offer. Plaintiff sued the Controller’s Office and the California State Controller in her official capacity, alleging violations of Title VII under both failure-to-accommodate and disparate-impact theories. She also asserted a failure-to-accommodate claim against the Controller’s Office under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and she alleged that the refusal by both defendants to accommodate her religious beliefs violated the Free Exercise Clauses of the federal and state constitutions.   THe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that, as currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s alleged injury was redressable only through a claim for damages. The panel held that she lacked the actual and imminent threat of future injury required to have standing to seek prospective relief on any of her claims, but she could attempt to cure this defect by amendment. The panel held that Plaintiff could seek damages from the Controller’s Office on her claims under Title VII. As currently pleaded, she could not obtain damages for her free exercise claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The panel held, however, that the district court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff leave to amend to seek damages from the State Controller in her individual capacity. View "BRIANNA BOLDEN-HARDGE V. CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action against Defendants Amazon.com Services, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc., alleging that Defendants’ failure to compensate employees for time spent waiting for and passing through mandatory security screening before and after work shifts and breaks violates Oregon’s wage and hour laws. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to Defendants, and Plaintiff timely appealed.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendants. The panel had certified the following issue to the Oregon Supreme Court: “Under Oregon law, is time that employees spend on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings compensable?” In response, the Oregon Supreme Court held that Oregon law aligns with federal law regarding what activities are compensable. Therefore, time that employees spend on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings before or after their work shifts is compensable only if the screenings are either (1) an integral and indispensable part of the employees’ principal activities, or (2) compensable as a matter of contract, custom, or practice. Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege that either of the identified exceptions applied. Accordingly, the panel held that the district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings to Defendants. View "LINDSEY BUERO V. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., ET AL" on Justia Law