The various state legislatures can often add an extra level of complexity to workplace law and regulation. With an employment practice that reaches into practically every jurisdiction, Litter's knowledge of and experience with state law and regulation makes it ideally suited to argue before the states' highest courts. Over the last five years, Littler has had a run of success on behalf of its clients in state appellate courts throughout the nation.
Arizona
Court Agrees that Reduction in Retiree's Benefit Plans is Lawful
State ex rel. Goddard v. Phoenix Union High Sch. Dist. No. 210, 208 Ariz. 517, 96 P.3d 220 (Ariz. Ct. App., 2004), review denied by State ex rel. Goddard v. PHX Union High Sch., 2005 Ariz. LEXIS 10 (Feb. 10, 2005).
In this procedurally complex employment benefits case, a group of retired teachers filed an age discrimination complaint with the State of Arizona alleging compensation irregularities. The State then filed suit against the school district under the Arizona Civil Rights Act. The trial court found the district's retirement plans were discriminatory, awarded back pay, and enjoined the district from continued compensation discrimination. On appeal, Littler attorneys persuaded the court that the district's reduction in compensation at age 65 was not based on discriminatory intent, but merely part of the entire retirement incentive. Accordingly, Littler attorneys established that the district's retirement plans constituted lawful bona fide employee benefit plans under the Arizona Civil Rights Act. The trial court award of back pay was vacated and the matter was remanded for entry of judgment for the district.
California
Retiree's Age Discrimination Case Ruled Groundless on Appeal
Omar v. Ralph's Grocery Company, 118 Cal. App. 4th 955 (2004).
An employee filed suit against the employer alleging eight causes of action, including declaratory relief, rescission, harassment and discrimination. Defendant employer filed a combined motion for summary judgment and motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied both motions. The appellate court reversed the court's order denying arbitration and remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties. The appellate court further stated that if the trial court finds an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties, the court must then determine whether plaintiff's claims are covered by the agreement. The appellate court further held that the issue of waiver must be resolved by an arbitrator because all of the plaintiff's waiver allegations involve non-litigation conduct and require interpretation of the arbitration agreement.
Plaintiff's Claims of Employer Misrepresentation Deconstructed, Case Struck Down
Levy v. Skywalker Sound, 108 Cal. App. 4th 753 (2003)
The plaintiff, who was originally hired in a non-union position, brought an action for unpaid wages, fraud and misrepresentation, breach of contract, and emotional distress, claiming the company had misrepresented to him that he was not eligible for union membership. The company obtained summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's claims were preempted by Section 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act. On appeal, Littler attorneys carefully distinguished the voluminous case law precedent presented by the plaintiff and ultimately persuaded the appellate court to affirm the judgment.
Indiana
Signed Employment Application Binds Employee to Application's Dispute Resolution Clause
American General Finance Management Corp. v. Watson, 822 N.E.2d 253 (2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 211).
An employee completed and signed an employment application upon his transfer. The issue on appeal was whether the parties agreed to arbitrate employment disputes according to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The appellate court concluded that the parties agreed that any disputes which arose were to be solved through the process discussed in the dispute resolution clause in the employment application.
New Jersey
Restaurant Managers Ruled Exempt in Precedent-setting Case
Marx v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 2005 N.J. Super. LEXIS 261 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 31, 2005).
Littler attorneys received a complete victory from the New Jersey Appellate Division for Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, which operates family-style restaurants on the east coast. The appellate court affirmed in full the ruling of the trial court holding that general managers of the restaurants were exempt employees and not entitled to overtime. In a case of first impression, Littler attorneys persuaded the court that the general managers served in an executive capacity within the meaning of New Jersey law. As the first reported decision on these particular aspects of the state's overtime wage and hour statute, this ruling will benefit restaurant and retail clients operating in other states.
New York
Littler Calls Employee's Bluff
Ripley v. Cortland, 727 N.Y.S.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001).
After being fired for playing cards in a storage room during his shift, plaintiff applied for unemployment but was denied. He appealed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's ruling that he was terminated due to disqualifying misconduct. Agreeing with Littler's argument, the Supreme Court of New York concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the Board's decision and rejected plaintiff's claim.
Court Finds Alleged On-site Assault Not Within Employer's Purview
Martinez v. Canteen Vending Servs. Roux Fine Dining Chartwheel, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5199 (2005).
A cruise ship employee filed suit for negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention when she was allegedly assaulted by her supervisor. Overcoming allegedly sympathetic facts, Littler attorneys persuaded the court that the supervisor was not acting within the scope of his employment when he attacked the employee, and there was no evidence that any of the supervisor's actions were directed or instigated by the employer.
Texas
Plaintiff Terminated for Dishonesty Not Rewarded With Libel Judgment
Columbia Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Bannert, 112 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App. 2003).
Plaintiff, who was terminated for dishonesty, sued the employer for libel, alleging that a memorandum on the employer's "shared" computer drive injured her reputation. The jury awarded her over $1.5 million in actual and punitive damages. Represented by Littler, the employer challenged the judgment on numerous grounds and ultimately persuaded the Texas Court of Appeals to reverse the judgment. The court held, among other things, that the memorandum was not defamatory as a matter of law and issued a judgment ordering that the plaintiff take nothing.
Vermont
Insufficient Evidence Sinks Employee's Gender Discrimination Case
Robertson v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., No. 2001-466 (Vt. Feb. 6, 2004).
Littler created a buzz in Vermont in this complex case involving a research scientist who sued for gender discrimination (failure to promote and unequal pay) and retaliation under the state Fair Employment Practices Act and Title VII. Facing existing employee-friendly case law, Littler attorneys argued that plaintiff failed to carry her evidentiary burden because she could not show she was as qualified for the promotion in question as the person who got the job. The Supreme Court of Vermont agreed, further rejecting plaintiff's theories of pretext as well as her claims of retaliation and unequal pay based on insufficient evidence, and resulting in an affirmation of summary judgment for the employer on all claims.
West Virginia
Libel Judgment Reversed Thanks to Littler Persuasion
Gress v. Petersburg Foods, LLC, 2003 W. Va. LEXIS 143; 9 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 400 (W. Va. 2003).
This class action lawsuit under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Law involved more than 3,000 potential class members and millions of dollars in potential damages relating to claims for unpaid vacation and bonuses to former employees. After the circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the employer retained Littler Mendelson to handle the appeal. The Littler team convinced a majority of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals (that State's highest court) to reverse and to direct the circuit court to enter final judgment in favor of the former employer.