Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Beginning in 1974, Douglas County’s retired employees paid the same amount as active employees for health insurance coverage. In 2009, the County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution that charged retirees premiums that were higher than the rate paid by active employees. Shortly before the change was to take effect, retired employees of the County (Plaintiffs) sued the County. The district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, concluding that equitable estoppel prohibited the County from increasing the premiums to be paid by the retirees above those paid by active employees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the retirees had no contractual right to pay the same premiums as active employees, the district court erred in using equitable estoppel to create such a contractual obligation. Remanded with direction to enter judgment for the County on Plaintiffs’ claims. View "Christiansen v. County of Douglas" on Justia Law

Lisa Knitter worked as a "handyman" for Lewis General Contracting, Inc. (LGC) from March to October 2010. During this time, LGC's sole client was Picerne Military Housing, LLC (Picerne), now known as Corvias Military Living, LLC. Knitter performed handyman services exclusively on Picerne properties. She sued Picerne under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging: (1) she was paid lower wages than her male counterparts; (2) Picerne effectively fired her in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment and wage discrimination; and (3) after she was fired, Picerne denied her application for vendor status in retaliation for her prior complaints of discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to Picerne, dismissing Knitter's Title VII action because Picerne was not her employer. The district court also dismissed her claim for retaliatory denial of vendor status because Knitter did not apply for employment with Picerne when she applied to be a vendor. Knitter appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Finding no reversible error, however, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Knitter v. Picerne Military Housing" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit to recover unpaid overtime wages from her former employer, Bloomingdale's. The district court granted Bloomingdale's motion to compel arbitration, determining that shortly after being hired by Bloomingdale's, plaintiff entered into a valid, written arbitration agreement and that all of her claims fell within the scope of that agreement. The court concluded that plaintiff had the right to opt out of the arbitration agreement, and had she done so she would be free to pursue this class action in court. Having freely elected to arbitrate employment-related disputes on an individual basis, without interference from Bloomingdale's, she could not claim that enforcement of the agreement violated either the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. 101 et seq., or the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the arbitration agreement was valid and, under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., it must be enforced according to its terms. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit alleging that Nordstrom violated various state and federal employment laws by precluding employees from bringing most class action lawsuits in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Nordstrom, relying on the revised arbitration policy in its employee handbook, sought to compel plaintiff to submit to individual arbitration of her claims. The district court denied Nordstrom's motion to compel. The court concluded that Nordstrom satisfied the minimal requirements under California law for providing employees with reasonable notice of a change to its employee handbook, and Nordstrom was not bound to inform plaintiff that her continued employment after receiving the letter constituted acceptance of new terms of employment. Accordingly, the court concluded that Nordstrom and plaintiff entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to address the issue of unconscionably. View "Davis v. Nordstorm, Inc." on Justia Law

After Donald Brown had worked for Charles T. Creech, Inc. for more than sixteen years, Creech asked Brown to sign an agreement that contained a non-compete provision. Brown signed the agreement. After Brown went to work for Standlee Hay Company, Creech sued Brown and Standlee, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, intentional interference with a contract, intentional interference with existing, and prospective business contacts. The trial court issued a temporary injunction enjoining Brown from directly or indirectly competing with Creech and from using information regarding Creech’s customers. The court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the temporary injunction, and the trial court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Standlee and Brown. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that issues of fact remained as to whether the non-compete portion of the agreement was enforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agreement was not enforceable. View "Creech, Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law

A former teacher, Terum Hopper, filed a wrongful termination action against the Jefferson County Board of Education. The Board moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hopper’s tort claims were barred by governmental immunity and that Hopper was required to pursue the administrative remedies set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. 161.790 to challenge the termination of his employment contract. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion as to the governmental immunity claims but denied the motion as to the breach of contract claims, declaring that Hopper was entitled to file suit on these claims rather than pursue administrative remedies. The Board sought a writ prohibiting the lower court from trying Hopper’s breach of contract claims. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and that the Board had an adequate remedy. The Supreme Court reversed and granted the writ, holding that because Hopper filed an action in the circuit court without first exhausting the administrative remedies provided in section 161.790, the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear his claim. View "Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. v. Hon. Brian C. Edwards" on Justia Law

Appellants, two employees of the University of Kentucky, sued the University, claiming that the University breached contractual obligations to provide them with benefits under a long-term disability compensation program adopted by the University. The circuit courts denied the University’s motions to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity. The court of appeals reversed both circuit court decisions, holding that the University was entitled to governmental immunity. Appellants appealed, arguing that the documents of the University establishing the long-term disability compensation program constituted a written contract falling within the waiver of governmental immunity set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. 45A.245. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants’ claims were not based upon a written contract with the University, and therefore, sovereign immunity remained a valid affirmative defense under the circumstances of this case. View "Furtula v. Univ. of Ky." on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked in a luggage factory in France that was owned by Samsonite. Samsonite was controlled by an investment group led by Bain Capital, LLC. Bain wanted to shut down the factory, and to avoid paying millions of dollars in post-termination benefits to the laid-off employees of the factory, Bain and Samsonite hired a third party, HB Group, to buy the factory. In 2007, a French court ordered the judicial liquidation of the factory. Because HB Group had no resources to pay Plaintiff and her coworkers, Plaintiff commenced this putative class action in 2012 seeking to hold Bain liable for losses suffered by the factory’s workers as a result of the sale and liquidation. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely under the relevant three-year statute of limitations. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no basis to conclude that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case. View "Abdallah v. Bain Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Howell appealed a judgment in favor of plaintiff Kneebinding, Inc. on his counterclaims alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, defamation, trademark violation, and misappropriation of trade secrets in this commercial contract and employment dispute. Howell contended on appeal that the trial court erred in concluding that: (1) a contractual release barred the counterclaims arising prior to the date of the release; and (2) the release was supported by sufficient consideration. In 2006, Howell formed Kneebinding, Inc. to develop a ski binding based on a new release mechanism that he had invented. John Springer-Miller provided major financing and received a controlling interest in the corporation. Pursuant to a series of agreements, Springer-Miller became the chairman of the board of directors and Howell was employed as president and chief executive officer. An employment agreement executed by the parties in November 2007 provided that Howell would be an at-will employee with an annual base and, in the event his employment was terminated "other than for Cause," Howell would receive severance payable in equal installments over a period of one year. Less than a year later, the company’s board of directors voted to terminate Howell’s employment without cause. Negotiations between the company and Howell over the terms of his departure resulted in a letter from Springer-Miller on behalf of the company to Howell confirming the terms of the severance arrangement. Pertinent to the appeal was an exhaustive list of claims which Howell agreed to release, "including, but not limited to," employment discrimination under federal and state law and tort and contract claims of every sort, subject to several exceptions, including Howell’s rights under the parties’ Voting Agreement and Investors’ Rights Agreement. In 2009, Kneebinding filed a lawsuit against Howell alleging that he had violated certain non-disparagement and non-compete provisions of their agreements, committed trademark violations and defamation, tortiously interfered with contracts between Kneebinding and its customers and distributors, and misappropriated trade secrets. Howell answered and counterclaimed, alleging counts for breach of contract, defamation, invasion of privacy, misappropriation, unfair competition, tortious interference with business relations, patent violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Kneebinding moved for summary judgment on Howell’s counterclaims, asserting that they were barred by the release set forth in the letter agreement. The trial court granted the motion with respect to all of the counterclaims that arose prior to the execution of the release on and denied the motion as to those claims that arose after the release. Howell asserted that, in granting summary judgment on the counterclaims, the trial court erred in finding a valid release because he never signed the separate release of claims set forth in Attachment B to the letter agreement. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Kneebinding, Inc. v. Howell" on Justia Law

Most of the employees at a La Porte unit (“Unit”) of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). When DuPont announced plans to spin off part of its operations, including the Unit, into a wholly owned subsidiary, DuPont Textiles and Interiors (“DTI”), almost all of the Unit employees moved to DTI, even though the CBA gave the employees the right to transfer to other DuPont jobs. DuPont subsequently sold DTI to Koch Industries, which reduced the former DuPont employees’ compensation and retirement benefits. Several of the former DuPont employees sued DuPont for fraudulently inducing them to terminate their employment and accept employment with DTI by misrepresenting that DTI would not be sold. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified questions of law to the Texas Supreme Court, which answered by holding (1) at-will employees cannot bring an action against their corporate employer for fraud that is dependent on continued employment; and (2) employees covered under a cancellation-upon-notice CBA that limits the employer’s ability to discharge its employees only for just cause cannot bring Texas fraud claims against their employer based on allegations that the employer fraudulently induced them to terminate their employment. View "Sawyer v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co." on Justia Law