Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Several Starbucks stores in Buffalo, New York, were the site of intense union organizing activity between August 2021 and July 2022, led by Workers United. After the Union launched its campaign, Starbucks responded with a series of actions: dispatching senior executives and support managers to Buffalo, implementing fast-tracked renovations, soliciting employee grievances, offering benefits and promotions, strictly enforcing workplace policies, and terminating several employees, many of whom were union supporters. The Union won certification at eight stores but lost the vote at the Camp Road location, leading to allegations that Starbucks’s conduct affected the fairness of the election.The National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel investigated, resulting in consolidated complaints. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Starbucks violated sections 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and sustained the Union’s objections to the Camp Road election. The NLRB issued an extensive order adopting the ALJ’s findings, concluding that Starbucks engaged in unlawful surveillance, coercive interrogation, solicited grievances, promised and granted benefits, threatened employees, changed policies and fired employees without bargaining, closed the Galleria kiosk discriminatorily, and disciplined union supporters. Remedies included a bargaining order at Camp Road, reopening the Galleria kiosk, compensating employees for pecuniary harm, and requiring a public notice reading.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the NLRB’s order. Applying a deferential standard to the Board’s factual findings and reviewing legal conclusions de novo, the Fifth Circuit denied enforcement as to one finding of unlawful surveillance, the sole findings of unlawful interrogation and coercive threats, remanding those portions. It granted enforcement for the Board’s findings under sections 8(a)(3), (4), and (5). The court denied enforcement of the consequential damages remedy and reopening the Galleria kiosk, but enforced the bargaining order at Camp Road and the public notice-reading requirement. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

In 2022, a Starbucks store in Wichita, Kansas, was the site of unionization discussions. The store manager, Carmella Neri, and assistant manager, Lauren Jacobs, made various statements to employees about union organizing, benefit changes, store hour reductions, and hiring practices. Employees testified that Neri referenced union activity during routine performance meetings, specifically suggesting that certain benefits might not be guaranteed if employees chose to unionize. Jacobs explained to an employee that the hiring portal was closed due to difficulties in discussing union matters with prospective hires. Additionally, Neri responded to an inquiry about reduced store hours by attributing the change to union-related pressures.After a failed union election, the union filed charges against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB’s General Counsel issued a complaint alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including threats of loss of benefits, creating an impression of surveillance, and linking adverse employment actions to union activity. An administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing and found Starbucks in violation on all claims. Starbucks challenged these findings before the NLRB, which largely adopted the ALJ’s conclusions but issued a narrower remedy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court granted enforcement of the NLRB’s decision as to the finding that Neri’s statements to employee Cuellar-Serafini about loss of benefits constituted an unlawful threat of reprisal. However, the Fifth Circuit denied enforcement regarding the findings on store hours reductions, hiring portal closure, and impression of surveillance, holding that these determinations were not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, only the threat of loss of benefits claim was upheld. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Several lieutenants and captains employed by the Harris County Sheriff’s Office alleged that Harris County violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to properly pay them overtime. These employees, who worked in either law enforcement or the county jail system, claimed that their primary duties were frontline law enforcement or correctional work. Harris County, however, argued that these plaintiffs were exempt from overtime under the FLSA’s administrative and executive exemptions, as their main responsibilities involved management and administrative oversight rather than frontline duties.The litigation began in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment in part for Harris County, finding that all captains and criminal justice lieutenants were administratively exempt, but concluded there were factual disputes regarding whether law enforcement patrol and investigative lieutenants were exempt. Those claims proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found that the remaining lieutenants were also exempt as administrative and executive employees. The plaintiffs then moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, raising arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence, alleged errors in the jury charge, and an asserted inconsistency in the verdict. The magistrate judge denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the plaintiffs’ claims. The court held that Harris County met its burden of proving that all plaintiffs were paid on a salary basis and that the criminal justice lieutenants qualified for the administrative exemption. The panel further found no error in the jury instructions or in allowing the jury to find both exemptions applied. The court also ruled that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial. Thus, the judgment in favor of Harris County was affirmed. View "Moreau v. Harris County" on Justia Law

Support staff who worked at a psychiatric hospital in Louisiana operated by Acadia-affiliated entities allege that, while they were provided with nominal meal breaks, they were functionally required to remain on call due to company policies and ethical obligations. As a result, they claim they were not properly compensated for this time. The plaintiffs, a former nurse supervisor and a former mental health technician, brought suit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees. Their claims included violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Louisiana state-law torts, specifically unjust enrichment and conversion.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana certified both an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23(b)(3) class action for the state-law claims. Acadia sought interlocutory review of the class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with Acadia’s appeal challenging both the collective and class certification decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the FLSA collective action certification at this stage, as Rule 23(f) provides for interlocutory review only of class certification orders, not collective actions. The court declined Acadia’s request to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction because the legal standards and issues between the FLSA collective and the Rule 23 class were not sufficiently intertwined. Turning to class certification, the Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the district court. It held that the Rule 23 requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority were satisfied based on the plaintiffs’ “on-call” theory, which presented common questions suitable for classwide adjudication. The court therefore affirmed the district court’s certification of the Rule 23 class, dismissed the appeal regarding the collective action, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hamm v. Ochsner-Acadia" on Justia Law

Brandon Holloway was employed by Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company for several years, performing tasks related to waste management and vendor coordination. In 2020, Holloway violated company procurement policies by directly contacting suppliers, which led to minor disciplinary action. Subsequent internal audits uncovered errors in his waste manifest forms and found he used his corporate credit card for personal expenses. Holloway acknowledged the credit card violation. He also alleged that he complained to management about company practices violating federal and state regulations and that he was subjected to racial discrimination. P&G terminated Holloway’s employment, citing policy violations and misuse of the company credit card.Holloway filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, alleging claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and violation of Louisiana’s whistleblower statute. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of P&G on all claims. The court found that Holloway failed to rebut P&G’s legitimate reasons for termination and did not provide evidence of a violation of law to support his whistleblower claim. Holloway appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decisions, holding that: (1) the use of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in the discrimination and retaliation claims was proper; (2) Holloway failed to show that P&G’s stated reasons for termination were pretextual; (3) Holloway did not provide significant evidence of retaliation beyond temporal proximity; and (4) Holloway did not establish that P&G violated any law, as required for a whistleblower claim under Louisiana law. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for P&G on all claims. View "Holloway v. Procter & Gamble Mftr" on Justia Law

A major industrial accident occurred at a petroleum refinery in Texas operated by a large energy company. During repairs, a pipe ruptured, leading to an explosion and fire that injured several workers and required an extensive emergency response. One employee, who played a critical role in the emergency efforts, later sought counseling and was diagnosed by multiple healthcare professionals with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) attributed to the incident. The company, following its procedures and the relevant Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule, reviewed these diagnoses to determine if they should be recorded as work-related mental illnesses under federal recordkeeping requirements.After receiving differing opinions from healthcare providers, the company ultimately concluded that the employee did not have a recordable work-related mental illness, relying on its designated medical evaluator’s assessment. The employee’s union reported the matter to OSHA, which investigated and cited the company for failing to record the PTSD diagnosis as required by OSHA’s rule. The company challenged the citation before an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). The ALJ upheld the citation and imposed a monetary penalty. When the company sought further review, OSHRC declined, and the ALJ’s decision became the agency’s final order. The company then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that OSHA lacked statutory authority under 29 U.S.C. § 657(c)(2) to require employers to record work-related mental illnesses. The court determined that the term “illnesses” in the statute referred only to physical ailments. As a result, the Fifth Circuit vacated OSHA’s rule, the citation, and the penalty imposed on the company. View "Exxon Mobil Corporation v. OSHC" on Justia Law

Sarah Budd, employed by SkyWest Airlines at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, was subjected to severe and persistent sexual harassment by coworkers and a supervisor, including degrading comments, sexual jokes, and references to prostitution and rape. Despite reporting these incidents to her supervisor, the harassment continued and escalated, resulting in significant emotional distress and physical symptoms for Budd. Following an internal investigation by SkyWest that resulted in minimal disciplinary action, Budd elected to take early retirement during the COVID-19 pandemic, fearing the work environment would not improve.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit on Budd’s behalf in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging violations of Title VII. After trial, a jury found that Budd had been harassed based on her sex and that SkyWest had failed to take prompt remedial action, but did not find retaliation. The jury awarded Budd both compensatory and punitive damages. SkyWest moved for a new trial based on evidentiary objections, challenged the jury instructions regarding mitigation of emotional damages, and sought judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages. The district court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the text messages admitted at trial were properly admitted as present sense impressions or statements of then-existing mental and physical condition under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court further held that Title VII plaintiffs are not required to mitigate damages for emotional distress, as neither statutory text nor well-established common law supports such a requirement. Finally, the court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s punitive damages award, as at least one manager acted with malice or reckless indifference and SkyWest failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to address the harassment. View "EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines" on Justia Law

Employees at a Starbucks store in Sylmar, California, engaged in union organizing activities during 2022. Several conversations between store managers and employees occurred regarding the unionization process, pay and benefit increases, and working conditions. Employees reported statements by managers suggesting that certain benefits would be paused or lost due to union negotiations, that unionization would not improve conditions, and that other jobs offered better pay. One employee, Untaran, was interrogated about his union support and subsequently terminated, with conflicting accounts regarding the reasons for his discharge.After a union election where a majority voted against representation, the union filed objections based on Untaran’s termination and management statements. An Administrative Law Judge for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including coercive threats, interrogation, and unlawful discharge, and ordered remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, and a new election. The NLRB adopted some findings and reversed others, particularly expanding the findings regarding coercive interrogation and threats.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the NLRB’s findings and enforcement orders regarding one coercive threat against Pichardo, the threat against Untaran, and Untaran’s coercive interrogation claim, finding these supported by substantial evidence. However, the court denied enforcement for the NLRB’s order regarding Untaran’s unlawful discharge claim and the coercive threat claims involving Sosa and Ramirez, as they lacked substantial evidence. The court dismissed Starbucks’s appeal regarding the order for a second union election, citing lack of jurisdiction over representation proceedings consolidated with unfair labor practice cases. View "Starbucks v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A registered nurse, who is a black woman and naturalized U.S. citizen from Ghana, began working at a healthcare system in Texas and alleged frequent discrimination and harassment by co-workers, including mockery of her accent and food, derogatory comments about black employees, and preferential treatment of Filipino employees. She reported these incidents to supervisors, but claims their response was inadequate. After further complaints, she alleges retaliation through informal and formal disciplinary actions and the extension of her probation period. She was later injured in a car accident, took medical leave, and upon seeking treatment at a hospital operated by the same employer during a hurricane lockdown, had contentious interactions with staff, but ultimately received care. When she tried to return to work, she requested refresher orientation and additional training, but after further delays and lack of response, she resigned, citing discrimination and retaliation.She subsequently filed two charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The first charge, encompassing events through September 2017, was timely; the second, covering her resignation and later events, was untimely. In May 2021, she sued her employer for discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation under Title VII and Section 1981, and disability discrimination under the ADA. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation granting summary judgment to the employer on all claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed summary judgment for the employer on most claims. However, it reversed the grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Title VII and Section 1981 hostile-work-environment claims, holding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the conduct was severe or pervasive and whether the employer’s response was adequate. The court remanded those claims for further proceedings, limiting them to facts alleged in the plaintiff’s timely EEOC charge. View "Brenyah v. Columbia Hospital" on Justia Law

Three named plaintiffs, all working for Schlumberger in oilfield drilling positions, challenged their employer’s compensation system under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Their pay structure included both a fixed, predetermined salary paid biweekly and substantial additional daily or activity-based payments, which often comprised the majority of their earnings. The plaintiffs regularly worked more than forty hours per week but did not receive overtime pay. They brought a collective action, arguing that their hybrid compensation arrangement did not meet the requirements for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “salary basis” exemption, and therefore they were entitled to overtime pay.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Schlumberger’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that material factual disputes prevented judgment as a matter of law on whether the plaintiffs were paid on a salary basis. The court allowed notice to a proposed collective of Directional Drillers but denied notice to another group, and it later certified an interlocutory appeal due to the unsettled state of the law regarding hybrid pay schemes.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of summary judgment de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the hybrid compensation plan, which included a guaranteed, predetermined salary paid on a weekly or less frequent basis, satisfied the regulatory requirements for the salary basis exemption under 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a), regardless of additional day-based or incentive payments. The court reversed the district court’s decision and ordered summary judgment for Schlumberger as to the named plaintiff Guilbeau, finding him overtime-exempt. However, the court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding other collective members, as their exemption status required additional individualized determinations. View "Guilbeau v. Schlumberger Technology" on Justia Law