12 results for 'cat:"Employment" AND cat:"Preemption"'.
J. Garcia denies all parties' motions for summary judgment, ruling the bus drivers' cited evidence fails to establish all necessary elements for their retaliation and discrimination claims and, therefore, precludes judgment in their favor. Meanwhile, the drivers' claims regarding the employer's failure to properly sanitize buses or use hypoallergenic sanitizers in the wake of Covid-19 are not preempted by the National Transit Systems Security Act because the complaint filed with OSHA before this suit was filed was dismissed by the agency.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Garcia, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv217, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Evidence, preemption, employment Retaliation
J. Morrison finds that an executive employee of a financial services company was improperly terminated because the employee’s contract called for a 90-day notice to terminate without good cause, or a 10-day cure period to terminate with good cause, and the employee received neither. The employee also entered a claim of fraudulent inducement related to a contract that he was told was identical to a previous contract but after signing, discovered that it included a new shareholder agreement. The judge found that this did not constitute fraud because the employee could have more closely examined the document.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Litkovvitz, Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv5837, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: employment, Fraud, preemption
J. Neals dismisses claims contending United Parcel Service fired a truck driver after he complained about repeated harassment and had denied transfer requests and other grievances. Many claims are preempted by UPS's supplemental agreement with the union, and other claims are time-barred; meanwhile, the complaint failed to plausibly allege hostile work environment, and the truck driver failed to respond to the assertion that the alleged harassment had not been severe or pervasive.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Neals , Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv11028, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: preemption, employment Discrimination, employment Retaliation
J. Battaglia finds that an employee may pursue some claims for labor code violations against a pipeline construction company. The employee's minimum wage claims are not substantially dependent on the collective bargaining agreement, so they are not preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The employee can also pursue a claim for reimbursement based on the use of a personal cell phone, as none of the provisions in the CBA relate to cell phone expenses.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Battaglia, Filed On: January 16, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv1626, NOS: Labor/Management Relations - Labor, Categories: employment, preemption, Labor
J. Bolden denies UPS's motion for summary judgment, ruling that while it relied on the cardinal infraction language in its CBA with the union when it fired the injured employee, the employee's lawsuit does not require interpretation of the CBA and so her retaliation claim is not preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Bolden, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv711, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: preemption, employment Retaliation, Labor / Unions
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. McFarland denies the employer's motion to dismiss, ruling the employee's race discrimination and retaliation claims are based on federal law outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the union and, therefore, are not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act or barred by the relevant statute of limitations.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: McFarland, Filed On: September 22, 2023, Case #: 1:23cv12, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: preemption, employment Discrimination, Labor / Unions
J. Menendez amends her August 22 order granting partial summary judgment to the employee in her suit against her employer alleging that it improperly terminated her for a failed drug test without confirming the test or giving her an opportunity to complete a rehabilitation program and denying the employer's motion for summary judgment. To her finding that the employer is liable for violating a Minnesota law governing employment-related drug testing, she adds that "damages will proceed to trial."
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Menendez, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv1186, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, preemption
J. Menendez denies the employer's motion for partial summary judgment and grants the employee's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the employer is liable for a violation of Minnesota's Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act. The employee's claims against her employer, stemming from her termination from a job at a nuclear facility because of a failed drug test, are not preempted by the Atomic Energy Act or other federal law since the state laws under which she brings her claims were not enacted for purposes of nuclear safety and the employer has not established that applying the DATWA would effect the nuclear licensee the employer was contracted by. The employer has also not sufficiently raised questions of material fact as to whether it terminated the employee because of a positive drug test result.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Menendez, Filed On: August 22, 2023, Case #: 0:21cv1186, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, Energy, preemption
J. Wendlandt affirms the denial of a railroad company’s motion to dismiss prevailing wage claims brought against it by one of its employees. The company claims that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act preempts the Prevailing Wage Act and that contractors who win bids to complete projects for Massachusetts don’t have to pay their employees prevailing wages if they are railroad companies, but this is not accurate.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Wendlandt, Filed On: August 14, 2023, Case #: SJC-13366, Categories: employment, preemption, Workers' Compensation
J. Menendez partially grants the employer's motion to dismiss its employee's suit against it alleging that it allowed pervasive sexual harassment to continue unchecked and that she was not granted the same opportunities as male pilots to dispute the results of a positive alcohol test. The employee's Title VII gender-discrimination claim is precluded by the Railway Labor Act and is dismissed. Her Title VII and Minnesota Human Rights Act retaliation claims are not similarly precluded or preempted, and survive since they are adequately pleaded.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Menendez, Filed On: August 11, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv2212, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: employment, preemption, employment Discrimination
J. Anderson denies the employer defendants' motion to dismiss in part. The employers seek to dismiss the plaintiff plant worker's claim that she was "terminated or constructively discharged" in violation of a state law regarding Covid-19 vaccinations, arguing that the state law is preempted by federal law. However, the employers have failed to "overcome the presumption against preemption."
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Anderson, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv1123, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, employment, preemption
J. Chesney dismisses several employment claims against Skywest Airlines from a pilot who says the airline does not pay their California-based pilots proper overtime wages or provide proper meal breaks. The meal and rest break claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Act. The pilot's expenditure reimbursement claim fails because he was not required to use his personal cell phone to clock in or to communicate with traffic controllers and dispatchers.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Chesney, Filed On: May 22, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv4674, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: employment, preemption