Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Maynes, a miner who developed pneumoconiosis after working in Consolidated’s coal mine for 25 years, received benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901-944, from 1997 until he died of respiratory failure in 2003. His widow sought survivors’ benefits. The then-current version of the BLBA conditioned her eligibility for benefits on proof that pneumoconiosis either caused or hastened her husband’s death. Her 2003 claim was denied. The Benefits Review Board and Sixth Circuit affirmed. In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, which amended the law so that survivors are automatically entitled to benefits if the miner received BLBA benefits during his lifetime. Congress specified that the changes would apply to claims filed after January 2005, but did not address whether persons whose claims had been denied under the previous eligibility framework, could receive benefits by filing a subsequent claim. The issue was answered in the affirmative by the Benefits Review Board and affirmed by the Third and Fourth Circuits. Although the Department of Labor, an administrative law judge, and the Benefits Review Board agreed Maynes was entitled to benefits, they disagreed about the appropriate commencement date for benefits. The Sixth Circuit rejected Consolidated’s appeal, upholding the 2009 commencement date. View "Consolidation Coal Co. v. Maynes" on Justia Law

Ogle, born in 1954, worked in underground coal mines for 21 years, most recently in 1996 in Kentucky. Ogle smoked since age 12. He sought black lung benefits in 2007. After the record closed but before the ALJ issued a decision, Congress revived a rebuttable statutory presumption that a coal miner who worked in an underground mine for at least 15 years and suffers from a total respiratory or pulmonary disability is presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis, 30 U.S.C. 921(c)(4). The ALJ awarded benefits, finding that Ogle suffered from totally disabling respiratory impairment, a conclusion with which all medical opinions agreed. The ALJ stated that the presumption shifts the burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that either the miner’s disability does not, or did not, arise out of coal mine employment or the miner did not, suffer from pneumoconiosis. The Fund demonstrated that Ogle did not suffer from clinical pneumoconiosis, but failed to rebut the presumption that Ogle suffers from legal pneumoconiosis. The Board affirmed. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review, finding no evidence that the ALJ improperly restricted the Fund’s ability to rebut the 15-year presumption or that the ALJ applied the wrong standard. View "Big Branch Res., Inc. v. Ogle" on Justia Law

CCRC employee Henschel was covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provided for seniority rights. Hel was involved in a motorcycle accident that resulted in amputation of his left leg. CCRC hired a temporary excavator operator for Henschel’s position. Henschel had hauled the excavator to the site 70 percent of the time and other CCRC employees, 30 percent. CCRC specified hauling as a function of Truck/Tractor Driver, but did not include hauling in its Operator-Excavator job description; it included an “Other duties assigned” task. Henschel sought a waiver to maintain his commercial driver’s license. The Michigan Traffic Safety Division requested, from CCRC, an evaluation of Henschel’s ability to perform essential job functions of a truck driver, including driving a manual transmission. CCRC did not limit testing to essential functions of a truck driver, but tested Henschel for every CCRC position. The Division allowed Henschel to retain his CDL, limited to automatic-transmission vehicles. CCRC did not try to return him to the excavator but attempted to find him a truck driver position in an automatic transmission truck. The lowest seniority truck driver declined to give up his truck. Before firing Henschel, CCRC did not ask other qualified drivers if they would be willing to haul the excavator. The district court entered summary judgment or CCRC. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the essential functions of the excavator operator position. View "Henschel v. Clare Cnty. Rd. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Krafsur, a federal administrative law judge, hears social security disability claims, including deciding how much to award successful claimants in attorney’s fees. Krafsur alleges that Davenport, the chief judge in his office, told him that his fee awards were too low. Krafsur’s refusal to make higher awards allegedly prompted Davenport to reprimand him, deny him leave and withhold paychecks. Krafsur complained about Davenport’s actions to the Office of Special Counsel, which handles grievances from federal employees. Before the Special Counsel responded, Krafsur filed suit, claiming that Davenport’s actions violated the First and Fifth Amendments, citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which creates a cause of action against federal officers for constitutional violations; the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Tucker Act, which authorize lawsuits against the United States for constitutional violations, 5 U.S.C. 702, 28 U.S.C. 1346. The district court dismissed on the ground that the Civil Service Reform Act remedial framework is exclusive. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that Krafsur’s interpretation of the Act would make a muddle of its text, a shambles of its structure and a lost cause of its purpose. View "Krafsur v. Davenport" on Justia Law

Sections 401 and 402 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. 481, 482, regulate union elections and authorize the Secretary of Labor to bring suit to enforce these provisions, after a union member exhausts or attempts to exhaust internal union remedies and files an administrative complaint with the Secretary. The complaining member has one calendar month to file his administrative complaint, measured from the latest of either the date he “exhausted” his internal union remedies or the date three months after the member invoked internal union remedies “without obtaining a final decision.” In this case, the Secretary argued that a member exhausted the union’s remedies when he received the union’s final decision. The union, representing police officers working for the United States Postal Inspection Service, argued that the member’s one-month limitations period ran from the date the union sent out its final decision. The district court dismissed on the grounds that the complaining member had not filed his administrative complaint within the prescribed time period. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that a member has not “exhausted” his internal union remedies until he receives the union’s final decision. View "Solis v. Postal Police Officers Ass'n" on Justia Law

Tillman filed suit pro se, alleging that Macy’s discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of Title VII when it terminated her employment in 2009. Macy’s filed a motion to compel arbitration, based on a claimed agreement between the parties to participate in a dispute-resolution program called Solutions. The Solutions process had four steps, the last of which is binding arbitration. After the May’s store at which she had worked since 2001 was acquired by Macy’s, Tillman received a document describing the Solutions process and noting that employees were automatically “covered” by arbitration by virtue of continuing employment, but could opt out of binding arbitration. Tillman’s packet was mailed and was not returned as undeliverable. Tillman stated that she did not receive it. In 2006, Tillman attended a mandatory video describing the Solutions Program. Tillman does not deny receiving a brochure distributed at the meeting. In 2007, Macy’s sent another brochure that stated that she had the entire Solutions program, specifically including Step 4 Arbitration. Tillman stated that she did not receive this mailing. Macy’s sent another Election Form and brochure. Tillman did not return the form; again claiming that she did not receive it. The district court denied Macy’s motion. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Macy’s provided sufficient notice of its offer to enter into an arbitration agreement, and Tillman accepted by continuing her employment and not returning either opt-out form. Arbitration should be required, notwithstanding the absence of an employee-signed agreement. View "Tillman v. Macy's Inc." on Justia Law

Allied, a union contractor, sued local unions, claiming that the unions colluded to withhold otherwise available job-targeting funds from Allied. The job-targeting-fund program provided union contractors with money to enable the employers to lower bids on certain jobs so that union contractors could have a competitive advantage over non-union contractors. Under the program, Local 7 collected dues from its members, including Allied employees, to subsidize union contractors who were part of the program. In 1998, Local 7 made job-targeting funds available for a job for the Kalamazoo Red Cross. Although Allied had previously received job-targeting funds from Local 7, the union did not allow Allied to receive funds for the Red Cross job and for other projects. Allied believed that it was denied funds because it had not signed a collective-bargaining agreement with the plumbers and pipe-fitters union. The district court dismissed and the NLRB later determined that bringing the federal suit constituted an unfair labor practice that interfered with employees in the exercise of rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining. The Sixth Circuit denied the NLRB’s petition for enforcement, rejecting an argument that Allied lack an objective basis for the suit. View "Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allied Mech. Serv." on Justia Law

Bowers joined Ophthalmology Group as an employee in 1999 and, in 2002, became one of six partners. In November 2009, Bowers tendered a resignation letter to her partners. Although she did not give a date of departure, the partnership agreement required a one-year notice. In March, 2010, the partners voted to expel Bowers from the partnership, stating that her Chapter 7 bankruptcy and creditors’ proceedings and other personal conduct were detrimental to the Partnership.” After exhausting administrative remedies, Bowers filed suit, alleging: gender discrimination under Title VII; wrongful termination in breach of contract or in violation of public policy under Kentucky common law; gender discrimination under Kentucky statutes; retaliation for complaining about gender discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. and the state law; and misappropriation of name for commercial advantage. Bowers moved to disqualify defendant’s counsel because another attorney at the firm previously represented Bowers in a substantially related matter. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant because Bowers, as a former partner, was not an “employee” under Title VII and denied the motion to disqualify “as moot.” The Sixth Circuit vacated summary judgment and granted the motion to disqualify.View "Bowers v. Ophthalmology Grp." on Justia Law

Williams had worked at Marathon’s Ashland, Kentucky, facility for 25 years, most recently as a senior barge welder. Williams alleged that he sustained a long thoracic nerve injury to his right shoulder while replacing parts of a barge in 2003. His injury was likely the result of the cumulative effect of his heavy lifting. Williams has not returned to work and has been seen by several physicians, but they do not agree on a common diagnosis. Following a remand the Benefits Review Board of the U.S. Department of Labor affirmed an administrative law judge’s award of permanent and total disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901. On a second appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that Williams is permanently and totally disabled and is unable to perform the alternative employment identified by Marathon’s vocational expert. The court granted Williams leave to seek attorney fees under 33 U.S.C. 928(a). View "Marathon Ashland Petroleum v. Williams" on Justia Law

Rachells, an African-American account executive in the Cleveland region since 2001, received numerous sales awards, consistently exceeded company sales goals by the greatest margin among his co-workers, and, in 2003, earned the top performance review among his Cingular peers. In 2004, Cingular acquired AT&T and eliminated five of nine existing Cingular and AT&T account executive positions. Although Rachells exceeded his 2004 sales goals by a greater margin than in 2003, he received the lowest 2004 performance review score of any candidate for retention and was ranked seventh out of nine in the overall selection process. Rachells was notified that he would be terminated and sued for racial discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to Cingular on all claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that Rachells had produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. View "Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC" on Justia Law