With so much at stake, it is no surprise that many of the most pressing workplace questions are brought before the nation's second highest court, the Federal Court of Appeals. Over the last five years, Littler's Appellate Practice has had remarkable success on behalf of its clients in nearly every circuit.
Medical Certification Deadline for FMLA Enforced by Littler
Urban v. Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc., 393 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff was terminated when, despite an extension, she failed to submit a medical certification in conjunction with her request for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that her employer was obligated to allow her to cure the deficiencies in her leave request. The district court ruled in plaintiff's favor, but the appellate court reversed. Littler attorneys convinced the Fifth Circuit that the FMLA curing provision does not apply where, as here, the employee fails to submit a medical certification altogether. The Fifth Circuit adopted Littler's reasoning that the concept of "deadline" under the FMLA would have no meaningful significance and no actual consequences if the court were to accept plaintiff's arguments.
Littler Obtains Summary Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims
Walker v. Mueller Industries, Inc., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8250 (7th Cir. 2005).
The plaintiff in this case was a Caucasian warehouse worker and union steward who complained to his supervisor about what he perceived to be discriminatory treatment of African American employees. According to the plaintiff, his complaints resulted in retaliation and workplace harassment. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC as well as a lawsuit alleging racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Littler attorneys successfully defended the action at both the trial court and appellate levels, obtaining summary dismissal of plaintiff's claims.
Employee Termination is Validated as Layoff, not Harassment
Hesse v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 394 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2005).
A rental car employee lost her job several months after complaining about a noisy supervisor. Claiming that the termination was related to her complaint, the employee filed a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation. In her deposition, Littler attorneys elicited testimony that undermined the employee's allegations. Littler attorneys were able to show the court that both male and female employees were subjected to the supervisor's conduct, that similarly-situated male employees were not given preferential treatment, and that the employee was not regularly harassed as she claimed. Littler attorneys convinced the court that the employee's layoff was the result of a legitimate reduction in force, and unrelated to her complaints. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit court affirmed the order granting the employer’s summary judgment motion.
On Appeal, Littler Convinces Court that Plaintiff Never Had Right to Jury Trial
Lutz v. Glendale Union High School, 403 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005).
Over Littler's objections that the plaintiff had waived her right to a jury trial, the district court tried all of the plaintiff's disability discrimination claims to a jury, which ruled in the plaintiff's favor. On appeal, Littler attorneys argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of liability because her original complaint did not contain an explicit demand that her case be tried by a jury. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Littler, finding that the district court erred in submitting the question of liability to the jury. Consequently, plaintiff's favorable verdict was vacated and remanded for the district court to determine liability.
Littler Enforces Employee Arbitration Agreement
Spinetti v. Service Corp. Int'l, 324 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2003).
The Plaintiff filed a court action for age and gender discrimination under the ADEA and Title VII despite having signed an employment arbitration agreement. The district court granted the employer's motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration. The plaintiff appealed, and the EEOC joined in the plaintiff's appeal as amicus curiae, asking the Third Circuit to refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement. The Third Circuit, agreeing with Littler's position, rejected the EEOC's arguments and held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable. Littler attorneys also persuaded the court that two unenforceable provisions of the agreement could be severed, even though the agreement did not contain a severability clause.
Retailer Disputes Race Discrimination Allegations
Arguello v. Conoco, Inc., 330 F.3d 355 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 567 (2003).
In this non-employment case, two Hispanic customers sued the owners of a Conoco convenience mart, alleging race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981") because of allegedly rude treatment by a store clerk. The plaintiffs claimed they were prevented from entering into a contractual relationship on nondiscriminatory terms — a violation of Section 1981. Littler attorneys argued, and the Fifth Circuit concurred, that plaintiffs' claim, i.e. discriminatory interference with making a retail purchase, was not appropriate for Section 1981 relief based on the evidence presented.
Age Discrimination Case Empowers Employer to Modify or Revoke Unilateral Contracts
Chambers v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 351 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2003).
The plaintiff sued for age discrimination, breach of contract (denial of benefits) and unjust enrichment after being terminated following the sale of his employer's operation to Met. Littler convinced the Eighth Circuit to affirm summary judgment on all claims. Notably, the court emphasized the power of the employer to modify or revoke a unilateral contract (including handbooks) so long as the employee has not begun performance. The court also analyzed all of plaintiff’s "evidence" and ruled it insufficient to support an inference of age discrimination.
Plaintiff Fails to Prove Sex or Gender-based Actions in Harassment Case
Linville v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 335 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2003).
The lower court granted summary judgment against a male plaintiff who sued for same-sex harassment after a coworker, in an act of horseplay, hit the plaintiff in the crotch several times. On appeal, Littler attorneys successfully argued that the judgment was proper because the plaintiff had failed to present evidence that the coworker's actions were based on sex or gender.
Court Swayed to Affirm Lack of Prevailing Classification for Union Workers
United States ex rel. Local 342 Plumbers & Steamfitters v. Caputo Co., 321 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2003).
The union brought separate actions against two contractors under the federal False Claims Act, alleging failure to pay the prevailing wage rate. The district court found in favor of Caputo, based on the Department of Labor's final ruling that the company had not misclassified its employees. Representing Caputo on appeal, Littler persuaded the Ninth Circuit to affirm summary judgment because the union could not show that a prevailing wage or classification had been established.