Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

[05/21] CARCO GROUP, Inc. v. Maconachy
Judgment for plaintiffs and award of attorneys' fees in breach of contract action and related claims is: 1) vacated as to the district court's judgment and awards with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for further findings as to proximate causation; 2) vacated as to the award of attorneys' fees and remanded for recalculation of those fees following the district court's determination as to whether plaintiffs proved proximately-caused damages on the contract claim; 3) reversed with regard to the district court's decision that attorneys' fees should be reduced by twenty percent across-the-board, and the denial of interest on the attorneys’ fees awards; and 4) affirmed in all other respects.

[05/21] Clukey v. Town of Camden
Dismissal of plaintiff's 1983 action alleging defendant-town deprived plaintiff of a constitutionally protected property interest in his right to be recalled to employment without due process of law is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the district court was correct that plaintiff's complaint alleged a protected property interest in his recall right; 2) plaintiff's uncontested allegation that he received no notice either before or after the defendant-town deprived him of a protected property interest in employment is in itself sufficient to state a procedural due process claim under section 1983; and 3) the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's potential recourse to state law foreclosed his section 1983 claim.

[05/17] Wilson v. Dollar General Corporation
Summary judgment for defendant-employer on plaintiff's claim that defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff had standing to maintain his claim despite his bankruptcy filing because, due to the powers vested in the Chapter 13 debtor and trustee, a Chapter 13 debtor may retain standing to bring his pre-bankruptcy petition claims; but 2) plaintiff was unable to show he could perform the essential functions of his position with a reasonable accommodation.

Read More

ERISA

[04/16] US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen
In an ERISA action under section 502(a)(3), which authorizes health-plan administrators to bring a civil action to obtain appropriate equitable relief to enforce the terms of the plan, based on an equitable lien by agreement, the ERISA plan's terms govern. Neither general unjust enrichment principles nor specific doctrines reflecting those principles, such as the double-recovery or common-fund rules, can override the applicable contract.

[04/02] Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc.
In an action alleging that a pension plan administrator purchased and continued to hold certain mortgage-backed securities in violation of its fiduciary duties under ERISA, the District Court's dismissal is affirmed where the amended complaint fails to allege facts supporting the plausible inference that defendant knew or should have known that the particular mortgage-backed securities in the portfolio were imprudent investments, as a decline in market price of a type of security does not, by itself, give rise to the reasonable inference that it was imprudent to purchase or hold that type of security.

[03/29] Hannington v. Sun Life and Health Insurance
Judgment for plaintiff in ERISA action in which plaintiff alleged defendant reduced his disability payments under an ERISA-qualified plan by the amount of his service-connected disability compensation from Veterans Affairs, is affirmed, where the Veterans' Benefits Act, is, as a matter of statutory construction, substantially dissimilar to the Social Security Act and the Railroad Retirement Act, and thus, the VA benefits plaintiff receives are not 'Other Income" for purposes of reducing the payment defendant owes plaintiff under the ERISA-plan.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[04/26] CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Board (Moya)
The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act excepts internal workers' compensation fraud investigations from the one-year limitations period established in Government Code section 3304(d)(1).

[04/22] County of Sacramento v. WCAB
An award by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) is annulled and remanded, where the factual basis of the evaluator's opinion, as revealed in her reports and deposition, do not constitute substantial evidence supporting her conclusion that the worker's psychiatric injury was not substantially caused by personnel actions.

[04/09] Kealhoa v. Office of Workers Compensation Programs
Evidence that a claimant planned his suicide does not necessarily preclude compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act because the proper inquiry is whether the claimant's work-related injury caused him to attempt suicide, so claimant's petition for review of the Benefits Review Board's decision is granted, and the matter is remanded for the Board or the Administrative Law Judge to apply the proper chain of causation test, and not the irresistible impulse test.

Read More

Civil Rights

[05/21] Clukey v. Town of Camden
Dismissal of plaintiff's 1983 action alleging defendant-town deprived plaintiff of a constitutionally protected property interest in his right to be recalled to employment without due process of law is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the district court was correct that plaintiff's complaint alleged a protected property interest in his recall right; 2) plaintiff's uncontested allegation that he received no notice either before or after the defendant-town deprived him of a protected property interest in employment is in itself sufficient to state a procedural due process claim under section 1983; and 3) the district court erred in its conclusion that plaintiff's potential recourse to state law foreclosed his section 1983 claim.

[05/21] Issacson v. Horne
District court's order denying declaratory and injunctive relief to plaintiffs in their challenge to Arizona House Bill 2036, enacted in April 2012, is reversed, where: 1) the Constitution does not permit the Arizona legislature to prohibit abortion beginning at twenty weeks gestation, before the fetus is viable; 2) under controlling Supreme Court precedent, Arizona may not deprive a woman of the choice to terminate her pregnancy at any point prior to viability; and 3) the legislation at issue effects such a deprivation by prohibiting abortion from twenty weeks gestational age through fetal viability, and is thus unconstitutional.

[05/17] Wilson v. Dollar General Corporation
Summary judgment for defendant-employer on plaintiff's claim that defendant failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff had standing to maintain his claim despite his bankruptcy filing because, due to the powers vested in the Chapter 13 debtor and trustee, a Chapter 13 debtor may retain standing to bring his pre-bankruptcy petition claims; but 2) plaintiff was unable to show he could perform the essential functions of his position with a reasonable accommodation.

Read More