Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking backpay for time spent donning and doffing pieces of protective gear required by the employer because of hazards at its steel plants. The employer argued that the time, otherwise compensable under the Act, is noncompensable under its collective bargaining agreement with plaintiffs’ union. Under 29 U.S.C. 203(o), parties may collectively bargain over whether “time spent in changing clothes ... at the beginning or end of each workday” must be compensated. The district court granted the employer partial summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the protective gear constitutes “clothes,” even if integral and indispensable to the work. Whether one exchanges street clothes for work clothes or simply layers one over the other may be a matter of purely personal choice, and section 203(o) should not be read to allow workers to opt into or out of its coverage at random or at will when another reading is textually permissible. Although safety glasses, earplugs, and a respirator do not fit the interpretation of “clothes,” the relevant question is whether the period at issue can, on the whole, be fairly characterized as “time spent in changing clothes or washing.” In this case, time spent donning and doffing safety glasses and earplugs was minimal. View "Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp." on Justia Law

In the 1990s, Defendants (Employers) created a sick-leave policy allowing employees to bank their sick leave in a continued illness bank (CIB). In 2002, Employers modified the terms of the CIB to create the CIB pay-out benefit, which allowed a capped amount of unused CIB hours to be paid to departing employees who completed twenty-five years or more of service. In 2008, Employers terminated the CIB pay-out benefit, and only employees who had reached twenty-five years of employment with Employers were entitled to their earned but unused CIB hours upon termination. Plaintiffs in this case represented employees who had not reached twenty-five years of service before the benefit ended. Plaintiffs brought a class action complaint against Employers. The district court granted summary judgment for Employers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that (1) Employers’ policies did not constitute a standardized group employment contract; (2) the CIB pay-out benefit was not deferred compensation or wages under the Montana Wage and Wage Protection Act; and (3) the covenant of good faith and fair dealing did not apply to Plaintiffs’ claims. View "Chipman v. Northwest Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his discrimination claim against his former employer under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue. Defendants moved to dismiss on the basis of a clause contained in plaintiff's employment contract, which indicated that English law governed the agreement and that "any dispute arising hereunder shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts." The court affirmed, holding that where a contract contained both a valid choice-of-law clause and a forum selection clause, the substantive law identified in the choice-of-law clause governed the interpretation of the forum selection clause, while federal law governed the enforceability of the forum selection clause; under English law, plaintiff's discrimination claims arose under the employment agreement, within the meaning of the forum selection clause; and the forum selection clause was enforceable under federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Martinez v. Bloomberg LP" on Justia Law

Respondents filed a complaint for accounting against Petitioner, their employer, after a dispute over the terms of their employment agreement. In response, Petitioner filed a petition to compel arbitration, asserting that, because Respondents’ claims arose out of their employment agreements, the circuit court was required to compel arbitration under an arbitration clause contained in the employment agreement. The circuit court denied Petitioner’s petition. The intermediate appellate court dismissed Petitioner's appeal, concluding that the denial of Petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration did not constitute a final judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an order denying a request to compel arbitration filed in an existing action is not a final judgment because the denial of the petition does not put the parties out of court or otherwise terminate the proceedings and does not deny the party requesting arbitration the means of further prosecuting or defending rights and interests in the subject matter of the proceeding. View "Am. Bank Holdings, Inc. v. Kavanaugh" on Justia Law

Steve Sangwin, a State employee, was a qualified subscriber and beneficiary of the State of Montana Employee Benefits Plan (Plan), which was administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana (BCBS). Steve's daughter, McKinley, was also a beneficiary under the Plan. This case arose after BCBS denied a preauthorization request for a medical procedure for McKinley on the grounds that the procedure was "experimental for research." Steve and his wife (collectively, the Sangwins) initiated this action by filing an amended complaint setting forth five counts, including a request for certification of a class action. The Sangwins defined class members as other beneficiaries of the Plan who had their employee benefits denied by the State based on the experimental exclusion for research in the past eight years. The district court granted the Sangwins' motion for class certification. The State appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's order defining the class; but (2) reversed and remanded with respect to the question certified for class treatment, holding that the district court abused its discretion in specifying for class treatment the question of whether the State breached its contract of insurance with the plaintiffs. View "Sangwin v. State" on Justia Law

Egg Harbor Township authorized construction of a Community Center and, as required by N.J.S. 52:38-3 adopted a project labor agreement (PLA). All contractors working on the project were required to sign the PLA, which contained a “supremacy provision,” providing that the PLA, with the local Collective Bargaining Agreements, superseded any national agreement, local agreement or other collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Sambe, the general contractor, signed the PLA. Sambe subcontracted roofing work to Donnelly, which signed the PLA and agreed that any party it selected to perform work would also be required to sign the PLA. Donnelly selected the Carpenters Union to perform the work, even though it was not a signatory to the PLA, apparently because the two were parties to a CBA. Sheet Metal Workers protested. The NLRB assigned the work to Carpenters and later concluded that Sheet Metal violated the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 185, by maintaining a section 301 suit against Donnelly and Sambe following that decision. In the parallel litigation district court granted summary judgment on Sheet Metal’s breach of contract claim. The Third Circuit granted the NLRB’s petition for enforcement of its order; vacated the breach of contract judgment against Donnelly and Sambe; and remanded the with directions to enter judgment in favor of Donnelly and to conduct further proceedings on the claim against Sambe. View "Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n v. E.P. Donnelly, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of a school district (District), were members of a collective bargaining unit. One plaintiff retired while the 1999-2003 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was in effect, and the other plaintiffs retired under the 2003-2007 CBA. In 2009, the District informed Plaintiffs that their co-pays would be governed under the terms of the 2007-2012 CBA, resulting in an increase from their previous co-pay charges. Plaintiffs filed this action for breach of contract, alleging that by increasing their co-pays, the District violated the terms of the CBAs in effect when Plaintiffs retired. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the contract did not specify that an equivalent level of coverage would continue during retirement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division as modified, holding (1) the plain meaning of the contract unambiguously established that Plaintiffs had a vested right to the "same coverage" during retirement as they had when they retired; and (2) because an issue of fact remained as to whether the parties intended for the right to the "same coverage" to preclude any modifications to prescription co-pays, it was necessary to remit the case for a hearing on the issue. View "Kolbe v. Tibbetts" on Justia Law

In 2007, Professor Ortony of Northwestern University, asked Dean Peterson, for a year’s leave to visit another university. Peterson proposed to authorize paid leave during calendar year 2008 and the 2011–12 academic year, if Ortony would teach during the intervening time and then retire. Peterson’s letter stated: “At your request, I will accept your resignation ... effective with your retirement on August 31, 2012” and specified when Ortony would be on paid leave and when he would carry a full teaching load. Ortony signed the letter in June, 2007. In 2011 Ortony did not want to retire and insisted that he had not agreed to do so. He filed an EEOC charge under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 626, and subsequently filed suit. The district court granted the University judgment on the pleadings. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Northwestern did not terminate Ortony: it bought out his tenure by promising him five years’ pay for three years’ work. That he changed his mind does not make the 2007 contract less binding. The court rejected Ortony’s argument that he “construed the [contract] to set out a tentative plan under which he could leave the University, if he chose to do so, in five years.” View "Ortony v. Northwestern Univ." on Justia Law

Michele Beach sued a clinic and its executive director, alleging that they had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by conducting an unfair investigation and unlawfully retaliating against Beach for her suggestions about improvements in security systems. Beach had worked for the clinic when the clinic's executive director concluded that prescription drug records had been systematically falsified and that Beach was responsible. The superior court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Beach appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. View "Beach v. Handforth-Kome" on Justia Law

The NECA-IBEW Health and Welfare Fund provides health benefits to members of a local union of electrical workers. The Fund negotiated a Local Agreement with Sav-Rx, a provider of prescription-drug benefits, under which Sav-Rx reimburses pharmacies for dispensing medication and then invoices the Fund for some of its costs. The Local Agreement does not call for arbitration. A few months later, Sav-Rx negotiated a different agreement with the national organization of the IBEW, with which the local is affiliated. The National Agreement offers locals reduced charges and more services than the Local Agreement and contains a mandatory arbitration clause. Local unions and funds could opt into the National Agreement, but the Fund's trustees never voted on the matter. Over the next eight years the Fund accepted from Sav-Rx services provided by the National Agreement. The Fund sued Sav-Rx for invoicing the Fund at rates not authorized by either the Local or National Agreement. The district court dismissed, finding that Fund had accepted the benefits of the National Agreement and was bound to it; Sav-Rx established that the Fund knew it was accepting benefits under the National Agreement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "NECA-IBEW Rockford Local Union 364 Health & Welfare Fund v. A&A Drug Co." on Justia Law