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

Plaintiff, working for Defendant since 1967, was a brakeman on a crew taking a freight train from Defendant’s Cleveland yard to Medina County, Ohio, in 2006. At a Valley City stop, Plaintiff operated a ground switch to move the alignment of the track. Plaintiff stood behind the switch and operated it for 30 minutes to an hour. Witnesses testified and pictures indicated that the ground where Plaintiff worked was muddy and was not covered with ballast. Plaintiff had to urinate while operating the switch and planned to urinate outside, rather than in the toilet compartment of the locomotive, because he found that compartment to be “dirty” and “unusable.” Once Plaintiff completed his tasks, he began to walk from the switch to a field behind the tracks. Within steps of the switch, Plaintiff slipped and twisted his knee. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a torn right meniscus and underwent surgery to repair the cartilage. The district court rejected jury verdicts in favor of Plaintiff on his claims under the Federal Employers Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding sufficient proof of causation between the jury-determined violations under FELA and LIA and Plaintiff’s injuries. View "Szekeres v. CSX Transp., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees of Coca-Cola, suffered work-related injuries and applied for workers’ compensation benefits through Sedgwick, Coca-Cola’s third-party benefit claims administrator. Sedgwick disputed the claims. Plaintiffs claim that Coca-Cola and Sedgwick “engaged in a fraudulent scheme involving the mail . . . to avoid paying benefits to injured employees,” and filed suit under the civil remedies provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). The district court dismissed. On rehearing, en banc, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs did not plead an injury to their “business or property” that is compensable under RICO. The RICO theory advanced in this case would throw the viability of workers’ compensation schemes into doubt; RICO “does not purport to afford remedies for all torts committed by or against persons engaged in interstate commerce.” The Michigan workers’ compensation scheme provides ample mechanisms by which the employee can contest denials. View "Jackson. Segwick Claims Mgmt. Servs." on Justia Law

Project labor agreements (PLAs) are used in the construction industry to set common conditions of employment for large projects involving multiple subcontractors and unions. On a public construction project, a PLA can be entered into by the governmental unit paying for the project or by its general contractor; the other party is a labor organization. If the governmental unit enters into a PLA, all contractors bidding on the project must agree to abide by it. Opponents argue that PLAs discourage nonunion contractors from bidding on government contracts and increase construction costs. Proponents, such as the trades councils, claim that PLAs enhance job-site cooperation and reduce labor disputes. The federal government has gone back and forth on allowing PLAs. Michigan passed the first version of the Fair and Open Competition in Governmental Construction Act in 2011, restricting the use of PLAs on publicly funded projects. Following entry of an injunction, that version was superseded by an amended act, passed in 2012. The district court enjoined the current version as preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the act furthers Michigan’s proprietary goal of improving efficiency in public construction projects, and is no broader than necessary to meet those goals. View "MI Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Snyder" on Justia Law

Kindred, a nursing home and rehabilitation center in Mobile, has beds for about 170 residents and eight departments into which employees are classified: nursing, nutrition services, resident activity, maintenance, administration, medical records, central supply, and social services. The nursing department has 53 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) not including the Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) and Registered Nurses (RNs). The LPNs supervise the CNAs; RNs supervise the LPNs and report to the nursing director. The union petitioned to represent the CNAs. , Kindred argued that the bargaining unit should be expanded to include an additional 86 non-supervisory, non-professional service and maintenance employees. The NLRB regional director certified the CNAs as an appropriate bargaining unit and the union won a representation election. Kindred refused to bargain. The Sixth Circuit granted a petition for enforcement, applying the “community of interest” approach. View "Kindred Nursing Cts. E. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Mendel was employed by the City of Gibraltar as a police department dispatcher. After his employment was terminated, he sued under the Family Medical Leave Act. At that time, the city employed 41 employees, excluding 25-30 “volunteer” firefighters, who are not required to respond to any emergency call, but are paid $15 per hour for time they do spend responding to a call or maintaining equipment. They have no consistent schedule and receive a Form–1099 MISC to report their income. They do not receive health insurance, sick or vacation time, or social security benefits, but may be promoted or discharged. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the city, finding that Mendel was not an “eligible employee” under FMLA, 29 U.S.C. 2611(4), because the city did not have more than 50 employees. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The substantial wages paid to the firefighters constitutes compensation, not nominal fees, so that they are employees, not volunteers, for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act and FMLA. View "Mendel v. City of Gibraltar" on Justia Law

Adamov immigrated to the U.S. in 1992 and began working at the bank in 1998. He became a district manager in Louisville, with an excellent employment record. In 2005, the bank hired Hartnack as Vice-Chairman, three levels up from Adamov. During the few times Hartnack and Adamov interacted, Hartnack made statements that Adamov found offensive, concerning his accent and being an immigrant. While giving a speech, Hartnack made the comment “I was talking to my managers and they looked at me like I was speaking Russian.” Adamov believed that he had not been promoted because Hartnack harbored animus based on Adamov’s national origin. Adamov spoke to his direct supervisor, who spoke with Hartnack and assured Adamov that Hartnack was not prejudiced against him. The bank subsequently investigated Adamov, concluded that his loans violated its ethics policy, and terminated his employment. The ethics policy went into effect after the date of the loan and no prior policy was introduced at trial. The district court dismissed Adamov’s retaliation claim, based on failure to exhaust remedies and entered summary judgment that Adamov’s discrimination claim failed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to the discrimination claim. The retaliation claim should not have been dismissed because the administrative-exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional. View " Adamov v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

Retirees, dependents of retirees, and the union filed a class action suit against the retirees’ former employer, M&G, after M&G announced that they would be required to make health care contributions. The district court found M&G liable for violating a labor agreement and an employee welfare benefit plan and ordered reinstatement of the plaintiffs to the current versions of the benefits plans they were enrolled in until 2007, to receive health care for life without contributions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court properly concluded that the retirees’ right to lifetime healthcare vested upon retirement after concluding that documents, indicating agreement between the union and the employers to “cap” health benefits and several “side” letters were not a part of the applicable labor agreements. View "Tackett v. M&G Polymers USA, LLC," on Justia Law

While employed as an electrical line worker, Waldo was subjected routinely to sexual harassment. Her coworkers displayed sexually explicit materials in the workplace, locked her in a porta-potty, ridiculed her for bringing a purse to work, demanded that she “pee like a man” and clean up her male coworkers’ tobacco spit, ostracized and ignored her on job sites and during trainings, and referred to her using gender-specific demeaning language. Waldo sued, bringing six federal and state-law discrimination claims, and a state-law tort claim. Although a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the employer, the district court granted Waldo a new trial on her Title VII hostile-work-environment claim, finding that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. After a second trial, the jury found in favor of Waldo, and the district court awarded her attorney fees and costs as a prevailing plaintiff. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the granting a new trial and the award of attorney fees and costs. There was clear testimony that the employer was aware of Waldo’s complaints, but that no formal response or investigation was undertaken, contrary to company policies that “[c]omplaints will be fully investigated.” View "Waldo v. Consumers Energy Co." on Justia Law

Like many Michigan municipalities, Pontiac has experienced significant economic difficulties, especially since 2008. Michigan’s Governor appointed Schimmel as Pontiac’s emergency manager. Acting under Michigan’s then-existing emergency manager law (Public Act 4), in 2011, Schimmel modified the collective bargaining agreements of Pontiac’s retired employees and modified severance benefits, including pension benefits, that Pontiac had given retirees not covered by collective bargaining agreements. The retired employees claim that Schimmel and Pontiac violated their rights under the Contracts Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Bankruptcy Clause. The district court denied the retirees an injunction. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for expedited consideration of state law issues. Michigan voters have since rejected Public Act 4 by referendum, which may have rendered Schimmel’s actions void.The court also questioned whether two-thirds of both houses of the Michigan Legislature voted to make Public Act 4 immediately effective. The court noted that similar issues face many Michigan municipalities. View "City of Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass'n v. Schimmel" on Justia Law

Findlay sought relief from a withdrawal liability payment it allegedly owed the pension fund under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461. Findlay had ceased making contributions to a pension plan administered by the fund as the result of a labor dispute. About three months after the strike began, the fund demanded Findlay pay withdrawal liability of more than $10 million. Findlay contended that withdrawal liability was improper because withdrawal occurred as the result of a labor dispute; that despite the Act’s arbitration requirement, it should not be forced to arbitrate the dispute because the withdrawal was “union-mandated;” and that despite the Act’s interim payment requirement, it should not be forced to make interim payments because doing so would cause it to suffer irreparable harm. The district court dismissed, holding that the Act required the dispute be arbitrated, and enjoined the fund from collecting withdrawal liability payments pending arbitration. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but reversed the injunction, stating that creating an exception to interim payments for employers that would suffer irreparable harm would contradict the congressional purpose of protecting funds from undercapitalized or financially precarious employers. View "Findlay Truck Line, Inc. v. Cen. States SE & SW Areas Pension Fund" on Justia Law