Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, current and former Chicago taxi drivers, paid a “shift fee,” a lease payment that allows the driver to operate one of the defendants’ taxis and earn income. Weekly fees range from $500 to $800 or more. Drivers also pay operating expenses, including fuel, airport taxes, upkeep, and sometimes insurance payments. The drivers do not earn traditional wages or overtime pay. Their only source of income is what they make in fares and tips from passengers. The drivers contend that they often receive less than minimum wage and for some shifts, pay more for fees and expenses than they receive from fares and tips. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of their class action suit under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115 and asserting unjust enrichment. The Act defines “wages” as compensation owed by the employer pursuant to an employment agreement between the parties. Even if the drivers were employees under an employment agreement, that agreement did not obligate defendants to compensate the drivers. The Act provides no substantive relief beyond what the underlying employment contract requires. View "Enger v. Chicago Carriage Cab Corp." on Justia Law

Reddick was employed as an FDIC “Investigation Specialist” by an initial two-year term appointment, set to expire in September 2012. In April 2012, the FDIC offered him an extension of the initial term for an additional two years. The offer stated that the “extended employment” would be “effective [September], 2012” and that the “extended appointment is subject to the conditions of employment [included in the initial appointment offer] and subject to your continued successful performance.” Reddick accepted the offer days after receipt. The FDIC revoked the extension offer in August 2012. Reddick filed a grievance on the theory that the revocation of the offer was an adverse action under 5 U.S.C. 7512 and that he was entitled to procedural protections that the FDIC did not provide him. The matter was referred to arbitration under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator found the extension offer to be conditioned on Reddick’s “satisfactory work performance” and that the revocation was supported by sufficient justification. The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal. The extension offer was still revocable by the FDIC even after acceptance by Reddick; it never matured into an effective extension, so Reddick was not “removed.” View "Reddick v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

The Omaha Police Officers Association (Union) and the City of Omaha (City) entered into a collective bargaining agreement that was to remain in effect from 2008 until 2013. In 2014, the Union filed a complaint against the City requesting that the district court declare that the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and the City had rolled over to the 2014 calendar year. In support of its complaint, the Union claimed that the City did not timely provide written notice of its intent to negotiate or modify the terms of the contract for 2014. The City, in turn, argued that the Union’s action was barred by the doctrines of waiver and equitable estoppel. The district court granted summary judgment to the Union. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the City failed to establish the required elements of equitable estoppel; (2) the Union did not waive its stated intention to allow the Contract to extend for another year; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the parties to pay their own attorney fees. View "Omaha Police Union Local 101 v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

Five multi-employer fringe benefit funds of the Plumbers, Pipe Fitters & Mechanical Equipment Service, Local Union 392, sued to collect delinquent employee fringe benefit contributions from B&B, an Ohio commercial plumbing contractor. The Funds were established for the benefit of contractors’ employees who perform work under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated between the Union and the Mechanical Contractors Association as agent for its member employers. During discovery, the Funds were unable to produce a copy of the CBA that was signed by B&B. B&B argued that the Funds had failed to produce proof that B&B’s principal independently signed the CBA, and that B&B had made 10 years of contributions on a voluntary basis. The Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of B&B, concluding as a matter of law that B&B entered written agreements setting out its obligation to contribute as required by the Labor Management Relations Act 302(c)(5)(B) and is bound to pay delinquent contributions that are owed to the Funds in accordance with the terms of the CBA and the trust agreements. View "Bd. of Trs. Local 392 v. B&B Mech. Servs." on Justia Law

Federal Insurance Company appealed a circuit court order denying its motion to compel arbitration of the breach-of-contract claim asserted against it by Kert Reedstrom. In 2008, Reedstrom entered into a written employment agreement with Marshall-Jackson Mental Health Board, Inc., d/b/a Mountain Lakes Behavioral Healthcare ("MLBHC"), to begin serving as its executive director in Guntersville. During the course of Reedstrom's employment with MLBHC, MLBHC held an executive-liability, entity-liability, and employment-practices-liability policy issued by Federal Insurance that generally protected certain MLBHC officers and employees described as "insureds" in the policy from loss for actions committed in the course of their employment with MLBHC. It was undisputed that Reedstrom was an "insured" covered by the Federal Insurance policy. The Federal Insurance policy contained an arbitration provision. A separate endorsement to the Federal Insurance policy further highlighted the arbitration provision and explained that its effect was that any disagreement related to coverage would be resolved by arbitration and not in a court of law. In July 2010, MLBHC terminated Reedstrom's employment and, in December 2010, Reedstrom sued MLBHC alleging that his termination constituted a breach of his employment contract. MLBHC asserted various counterclaims against Reedstrom based on his alleged misconduct while serving as executive director. Thereafter, Reedstrom gave Federal Insurance notice of the claims asserted against him and requested coverage under the terms of the Federal Insurance policy. Federal Insurance ultimately denied his claim and refused to provide him with counsel to defend against MLBHC's claims. A jury returned a verdict awarding Reedstrom $150,000 on his claim against MLBHC and awarding MLBHC $60,000 on its claims against Reedstrom. Consistent with its previous denial of his request for coverage, Federal Insurance refused Reedstrom's request to satisfy the judgment entered against him. Reedstrom sued Federal Insurance, asserting one claim of breach of contract and seeking $72,000 in damages ($60,000 for the judgment entered against him and $12,000 for the attorney fees he incurred in defending those claims). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court did not articulate its rationale for denying the motion to compel arbitration. The denial was apparently based on the court's resolving at least one of the arbitrability issues raised by Reedstrom in his favor and against Federal Insurance. However, because the subject arbitration provision delegated to the arbitrators the authority to resolve such issues, the trial court erred by considering the waiver and nonsignatory issues raised by Reedstrom instead of granting the motion to compel arbitration and allowing the arbitrators to resolve those issues. View "Federal Insurance Company v. Reedstrom" on Justia Law

In 1992, Plaintiff was convicted of a felony drug offense. In 2006, Plaintiff applied to the Fairfax County School Board for a teaching position and disclosed her prior conviction on her application. The Board subsequently hired Plaintiff as a special education teacher. In 2012, the school system’s Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources determined that, pursuant to Va. Code 22.1-296.1(A), Plaintiff’s 2006 hiring had been in error because her conviction made her ineligible for employment by the Board. The Board subsequently filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that section 22.1-296.1(A) made Plaintiff ineligible for hire. The circuit court entered an order declaring that the Board lacked authority to hire Plaintiff under section 22.1-296.1(A). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board lacked authority to make the contract, and therefore, the contract was void ab initio. View "Butler v. Fairfax County School Board" on Justia Law

James Armour’s employment contract with AM General LLC entitled him to payment of a long-term incentive plan (LTIP). When Armour retired, he was to receive a lump sum LTIP payment, but instead he started receiving quarterly installment payments in the form of checks. AM General attempted to make the final installment payment with a subordinate promissory note. Armour rejected the Note and requested full payment. Thereafter, AM General filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that it had not breached the LTIP portion of its agreement with Armour. Armour counterclaimed, asserting that AM General breached the employment agreement by failing to pay Armour the full LTIP payment when it was due and claiming that, by attempting to pay the remaining portion of the LTIP payment with a promissory note, AM General breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Armour. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact with regard to how “payment” could be made under the LTIP provision of the agreement. The Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that AM General breached its employment agreement with Armour because the Note did not constitute payment under the employment agreement. View "AM General LLC v. Armour" on Justia Law

In 2000, plaintiff accepted the Gray law firm’s offer of employment as an associate attorney, including a provision requiring both parties to submit all disputes relating to the employment relationship to binding arbitration. In 2005, Gray merged into DLA Piper. In 2006, plaintiff signed a “Confidential Resignation Agreement and General Release of Claims.” DLA agreed to continue to provide insurance and other benefits until August 2006, when his employment would officially terminate. The Termination Agreement is silent concerning dispute resolution. Plaintiff later sued, alleging: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of contract; promissory fraud; and constructive fraud, arguing that the firm had “undervalued” his benefits by computing them based on “artificially reduced salary figures.” DLA sought to compel arbitration. Plaintiff asserted the Termination Agreement constituted a novation, extinguishing the arbitration provision, and that even if the provision had survived, claims involving the benefit plan were not subject to arbitration. The court compelled arbitration. In 2013, the arbitrator determined DLA had breached the Termination Agreement and plaintiff had suffered emotional distress, and awarded $41,000 in contract damages plus interest, $45,000 in emotional distress damages, and $7,535.67 in costs. The court of appeal affirmed confirmation of the award. View "Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary" on Justia Law

Petitioner was terminated from her position as the Clerk-Treasurer of the Town of Hurlock two and one-half years after she entered into a written employment agreement with the Mayor-elect. Under the employment agreement, Petitioner was to serve a four-year term. Petitioner brought this action against Respondent, the Town, alleging breach of contract and seeking damages and other relief. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the four-year term of employment in the agreement was inconsistent with the Town Charter and therefore ineffective. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the language of the Town Charter means that an official like the Clerk-Treasurer is an at-will employee; and (2) the Mayor and Council of Hurlock lacked authority under the Town Charter to enter into an agreement conferring a fixed term of employment in this case. View "Clough v. Mayor & Council of Hurlock" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, 19 workers employed by Degeller, filed a class action suit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated Deggeller employees. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the breach of contract claim where the workers’ allegation that Deggeller failed to pay the prevailing wage stated a valid claim for breach of their employment contracts. The court also concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the workers' claim for statutory damages under 26 U.S.C. 7434 because they alleged that Deggeller intentionally filed fraudulent tax documents on their behalf. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of these claims and vacate its decision under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3) not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Arkansas minimum wage claim. View "Cuellar-Aguilar v. Deggeller Attractions, Inc." on Justia Law