Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

[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.

[05/17] Colon v. Tracey
Summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims for unlawful employment retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is affirmed, where plaintiff did not establish: 1) a prima facie case of retaliation; and 2) that the defendants' stated rationales for their purportedly unlawful actions toward her were pretextual.

[05/16] New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation v. NLRB
Summary judgment for nurses union against plaintiff on a charge of unfair labor practices, and subsequent orders affirming the same, are vacated, where: 1) the Recess of the Senate in the Recess Appointments Clause refers to only intersession breaks, i.e. breaks between sessions of the Senate; and consequently, 2) the NLRB panel below lacked the requisite number of members to exercise the NLRB's authority because one panel member was invalidly appointed during an intrasession break.

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

[05/17] 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.

[05/17] Scoggins v. Lee's Crossing Homeowners Association
Summary judgment holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) to an accommodation and a modification that they requested from defendant homeowners association is: 1) vacated and remanded in part with regard to the district court's holding on the merits of the modification request for the wheelchair access ramp, because that claim is not ripe; 2) affirmed in part, as to the district court's holding with respect to the accommodation request for permission to use an ATV, because that request was not "reasonable" within the meaning of the FHAA; and 3) affirmed in part, with respect to the district court’s denial of the defendants' request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

[05/17] Colon v. Tracey
Summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims for unlawful employment retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is affirmed, where plaintiff did not establish: 1) a prima facie case of retaliation; and 2) that the defendants' stated rationales for their purportedly unlawful actions toward her were pretextual.

Read More