21 results for 'cat:"Evidence" AND cat:"Labor"'.
J. Johnson denies summary judgment to a maintenance company on its argument a black employee’s racial bias claim should be dismissed. His supervisor allegedly referred to him with racist profanity with another employee outside the litigant’s presence. The Fifth Circuit recognizes that while "a single instance of a racial epithet does not, in itself, support a claim of hostile work environment,” perhaps “no single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as [the N-word] by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates.”
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: Johnson, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv560, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: evidence, Employment Discrimination, labor
J. King remands to the arbitrator the food company's complaint that it did not breach the collective bargaining agreements by trying to vacate the award in the unions' favor or by filing an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board. The arbitrator should handle this dispute, because the food company does not cite any evidence that the arbitrator "cannot account for the back pay tolling issue when specifying the proper 'formulae' for implementing the 'make whole' remedy and conducting the back pay calculation on remand."
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: King, Filed On: March 30, 2024, Case #: 2:19cv1736, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: Arbitration, evidence, labor
[Consolidated.] J. Moore grants the National Labor Relations Board's motion to enforce an order requiring the employer to provide back pay to two employees fired after they supported unionization efforts, ruling both employees made concerted efforts to reenter the workforce after they lost their jobs, which prevents a reduction of their damages. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Moore, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 23-1632, Categories: evidence, Damages, labor / Unions
J. Nagala grants, in part, the deckhand's motion for conditional class certification, ruling the four employee declarations regarding the employer's refusal to compensate them for time spent moving boats to and from jobsites, which deprived them of overtime pay, are sufficient at this stage to demonstrate a workplace policy that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Nagala, Filed On: March 19, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv46, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: evidence, Class Action, labor
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. Cole denies the restaurant employees' motion for class certification, ruling that while the lead plaintiff cites his own experiences of being denied tips during the Covid-19 pandemic, his complaint says nothing about the experiences of other waitstaff and, therefore, cannot satisfy typicality or commonality requirements.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Cole, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv377, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: evidence, Class Action, labor
J. Nagala grants the employees' motion for class certification, ruling that although the class members were employed by FedEx for different periods of time and had minor differences in their job duties, they were all subject to the same pre-work security screenings and satisfy commonality requirements.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Nagala, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv1644, NOS: Other Labor Litigation - Labor, Categories: evidence, Class Action, labor
J. Lemelle denies requests by an association of ship loaders to reconsider a court ruling denying its request for arbitration of a longshoremen’s union complaint, according to which it is owed $2.8 million due to the association’s complete withdrawal from the union pension fund. Neither the stevedoring association nor its insurer initiated arbitration before the statutorily defined deadlines. No withdrawal-liability payment was ever made. If the companies desired to contest the withdrawal-liability calculation, they could have done so through ERISA’s compulsory arbitration scheme.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Lemelle, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv2566, NOS: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) - Labor, Categories: Arbitration, evidence, labor / Unions
J. Gibbons finds the lower court erroneously granted the fracking company employees' motion for judgment on liability for Fair Labor Standards Act claims because there are issues of fact regarding whether the employees' irregular schedules are necessitated by the industry or are caused solely by the fracking company's predetermined work schedule. Although many of the weeks during which employees worked fewer than 40 hours stemmed from scheduled time off, a large portion also came from weeks with full work schedules, which lends support to the company's theory irregularities in scheduling are a result of fluctuating demand for services; therefore, the case must be remanded for further analysis. Reversed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Gibbons, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 23-3247, Categories: Employment, evidence, labor
J. Watson denies, in part, the employee's motion for summary judgment, ruling that while it is undisputed the delivery driver worked in excess of 40 hours per week on at least one occasion, questions of fact about whether he was an employee or an independent contractor prevent judgment in his favor and preclude the award of any damages.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Watson, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv4744, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: evidence, labor
J. Watson grants, in part, the employer's motion for summary judgment, ruling the two-year statute of limitations will apply to all Fair Labor Standards Act claims brought in the lawsuit by the class of delivery drivers because the employer's potential misclassification of the drivers was not willful conduct. Rather, the company's owner testified he was unaware of similar lawsuits filed by Amazon delivery drivers and based the classification on his previous experience as a delivery driver.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Watson, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv4744, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: evidence, Class Action, labor
Per curiam, the court of appeals denies the city's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s denial of a combined traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Because the city’s motion does not specifically state each element of the suspended union member's claims on which it says he did not have evidence to support his claims, it does not comply with rules of a no evidence motion. Also, the record filed to support the petition does not include all exhibits the court considered when ruling on the hybrid motion.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: 09-23-00197-CV, Categories: evidence, Due Process, labor / Unions
J. Lioi denies the employer's motion for summary judgment, ruling that although a large portion of the employee's job was related to manual labor and conversing with patients at the nursing home, deposition testimony from each party creates questions of fact regarding how much oversight and ultimate decision-making authority the employee had in terms of implementing facility upgrades and prevents the court from determining her exempt status at this stage of the litigation.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Lioi, Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: 5:21cv2259, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: Employment, evidence, labor
J. Marbley grants the exotic dancers' motion for class certification, ruling that while the tenant agreements signed by the dancers at different clubs may not be identical, they were all subject to similar employment conditions that required them to pay rent to the clubs as a condition of their employment, which satisfies commonality requirements.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Marbley, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 2:15cv2883, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: evidence, Class Action, labor
J. Knepp grants, in part, the Department of Labor's motion for summary judgment, ruling the principal owner of the chain of wireless stores will be held jointly liable for any violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. While managers oversaw day-to-day operations, he set in place the payment structure for employees that led to this lawsuit. Meanwhile, neither party is entitled to judgment on the minimum wage claim, given the lack of complete payroll records to support the owner's claim that deductions were taken out to offset theft and allow for loans to employees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Knepp, Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: 3:20cv718, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: evidence, Government, labor
J. Beckerman finds in favor of the employees on their Fair Labor Standards Act claims, which allege that the automobile dealership owners did not pay the employees and the collective members minimum wages and overtime. The dealership owners do not present evidence that adequately explains what they did to pay the employees after the regular payday or to show that they issued a notice that they complied with the FLSA.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Beckerman, Filed On: July 25, 2023, Case #: 3:18cv372, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: Employment, evidence, labor
J. Pappert grants Pepperidge Farm’s motion to dismiss a group of delivery drivers’ claims that they have been wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees by the company. The undisputed facts, such as the fact that they received pandemic-era business loans, show that they operated as independent contractors.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge: Pappert, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv3881, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: Employment, evidence, labor
J. Morrison denies both parties' motions for summary judgment on unpaid overtime claims filed by the class of employees. The generalizations made by the employees about compensable work performed at the beginning and end of their shifts is insufficient to prove any violations of the FLSA, while the employer's failure to provide any evidence to rebut allegations it altered timesheets prevents judgment in its favor. Meanwhile, because the employees were governed by a contract with their employer, they cannot recover any damages for their unjust enrichment claim, which must be dismissed.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Morrison, Filed On: July 10, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv1265, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: evidence, Class Action, labor
J. Seeley finds the lower court properly granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on labor law claims filed by a class of limousine drivers. Evidence shows the drivers did not work during one-hour unpaid meal breaks and used the time for their own benefits. Although the drivers were required to stay with their vehicles and remain within two miles of their next scheduled pickups, deposition testimony indicates they were able to go to malls and offtrack betting sites, converse with other drivers, and use their cell phones to surf the internet, all of which proved the time was not compensable under the relevant labor laws. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Seeley, Filed On: June 15, 2023, Case #: AC44659, Categories: evidence, Class Action, labor
C.J. Bright finds the lower court erroneously granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on its special good faith defense in a wage case. There is conflicting evidence as to whether it believed its payment practices to the waitress complied with state labor laws. While the employer claims it believed the waitress's non-tipped duties were performed for a minimal amount of time each shift, its legal counsel testified the restaurant had been informed its pay policies likely violated the law. Reversed in part.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bright, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: AC44544, Categories: Employment, evidence, labor