Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, 64 former employees of DuPont who worked at the company's manufacturing facility in La Porte, Texas, filed suit against DuPont alleging that they were fraudulently induced to terminate their employment with DuPont and accept employment with a wholly owned subsidiary. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims and entered a take-nothing final judgment in favor of DuPont. The court deferred to the Texas appellate courts and concluded that the 60 day termination clause at issue rendered the covered employees' employment with DuPont at-will for the purpose of Texas law. Accordingly, they could not bring fraud claims against DuPont for loss of their employment and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class, alleged failure to compensate them for work performed during their meal break and before and after shifts, and for time spent attending training sessions, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 206-207; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1059(a)(1), 1104(a)(1); and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962, 1964(c). The district court held that the FLSA claim was deficiently pled, and that this was fatal to the complaint because the ERISA and RICO claims were derivative of the FLSA claim. The court found the allegation of under-compensation insufficient, given the lack of any information on plaintiffs' approximate weekly wages and hours worked, or even an allegation that they had worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek. The First Circuit vacated. The allegations were insufficient under the FLSA, but plaintiffs should be permitted to amend.

Penske provided transportation services for a newspaper, its only customer, 1999 to 2009, but lost the bid for the contract and informed the union that it would cease operations. The collective bargaining agreement expired two days after operations shut down. Penske and the union engaged in "effects bargaining." Penske agreed to give workers extended recall rights, preferential treatment should they apply for employment at other firms within the Penske group, pay for unused vacation time, severance pay of one week's wages, and assistance in preparing resumes and securing letters of recommendation. Employees filed claims they characterized as a "hybrid" breach of contract and Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185 suit. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the suit was "doomed" because the plaintiffs did not even contend that Penske failed to implement the collective bargaining agreement. The court also dismissed a claim that the union did not bargain hard enough.

In a consolidated appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in denying their motions to remand and in dismissing their workplace safety claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that Dresser failed to properly monitor and mitigate exposure to loud noise at Dresser's industrial facility and that these failures led to long-term hearing loss. The court concluded that Dresser owed plaintiffs duties under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and simultaneously owed non-negotiable, independent duties under Louisiana tort law. These duties formed the bases for two distinct types of claims - contract and tort - either of which plaintiffs could have brought before the district court. Plaintiffs chose to sue in tort, without reference to the CBA, and their claims could be adjudicated by sole resort to Louisiana tort law. Applying the Supreme Court's construction of section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), the district court was without jurisdiction and therefore erred in denying the motions to remand and in granting the motions to dismiss. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff sued his former employer alleging causes of action for failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Law 190-198 and breach of contract. The employer subsequently appealed the Appellate Division's order, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict because statements in the employment application and employee handbook negated plaintiff's alleged expectation of, or entitlement to, a guarantee or non-discretionary bonus and that the oral agreements respecting the bonus, if, in fact, entered into by the parties, were unenforceable. The court concluded that plaintiff's bonus was "expressly link[ed]" to his "labor or services personally rendered." Further, plaintiff's bonus had been earned and was vested before he left his job; its payment was guaranteed and non-discretionary as a term and condition of his employment. Since plaintiff's bonus therefore constituted "wages" within the meaning of Labor Law 190, the employer's neglect to pay him the bonus violated Labor Law 193, and entitled plaintiff to an award of attorney's fees under Labor Law 198(a-1). The court considered the employer's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Plaintiff entered into a "Stipulation Agreement Regarding Damages," approved by the EEOC, to resolve her Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim against the U.S. Postal Service. She later filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging breached of that Agreement. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction because the Agreement was a consent decree, not a contract. In the federal system, when the United States is the defendant, whether the issue is enforcement of a court decree by the issuing forum or enforcement of a settlement contract in a separate suit determines which court can hear the case. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that the "dispute is yet another example of the wastefulness of litigation over where to litigate." Consent decrees and settlement agreements are not necessarily mutually exclusive; a settlement agreement, even one embodied in a decree, is a contract within the meaning of the Tucker Act.

Stephan Odders and Gerald Kerber were former employees of Loparex, a corporation in the release liner industry. Both employees were subject to a one-year noncompetition agreement upon termination of employment. After ceasing employment at Loparex, both employees began employment with MPI Release Technologies, a competitor in the release liner industry. Loparex sued Kerber and Odders (Defendants) in the U.S. district court, seeking injunctive relief under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act and damages resulting from Defendants' breach of the noncompetition agreement. Defendants filed amended answers and counterclaims accusing Loparex of blacklisting in violation of Indiana law. The Supreme Court accepted certification to answer questions of state law and held (1) Wabash Railroad Co. v. Young, which held that Indiana's Blacklisting Statute did not provide a cause of action to individuals who voluntarily leave their employment, is no longer good law and individuals who voluntarily leave employment are not barred from making a claim under the Blacklisting Statute; (2) attorney fees are not an element of compensatory damages under the Blacklisting Statute; and (3) an employer's suit against a former employee to protect trade secrets is not a basis for recovery under the Blacklisting Statute.

The collective bargaining agreement was scheduled to expire. During negotiations, the union disclaimed representation of the company's employees and terminated the collective bargaining process. The company then withdrew from the multiemployer pension plan. The pension fund imposed withdrawal liability and assessed $57,291.50, 29 U.S.C. 1399. The company demanded indemnification from the union pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, which stated: "The Union shall indemnify the Company for any contingent liability which may be imposed under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980." The district court concluded that an arbitration provision was enforceable. The arbitrator ordered the union to pay. The district court upheld the award. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that it would violate public policy for a union to indemnify an employer for any contingent liability to a pension plan established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461.

Richard and Elaine Benson, Bill and Mary Bliven, Don and Annette Feist, Pat Lynch, and Lloyd and Donna Tribitt ("Bensons") appealed the grant of summary judgment that dismissed their claim that SRT Communications, Inc.,was contractually obligated to provide them post-retirement health and medical benefits. The Bensons are four retired employees of the Minot telephone business, their spouses, and Pat Lynch, the widow of a deceased retiree, Thomas Lynch. Richard Benson, Bill Blevin, Don Feist, Lloyd Tribitt, and Thomas Lynch worked for NSP before it sold its telephone business to Minot Telephone in 1991, and they all retired from Minot Telephone between 1991 and 1994, before Souris River purchased Minot Telephone from Rochester. With the exception of Don Feist, the retired employees belonged to Local Union No. 949 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers when the labor union and NSP entered into a collective bargaining agreement in 1991. Feist previously had been a member of the labor union, but did not belong to the union when it entered into the 1991 collective bargaining agreement with NSP. The district court concluded the 1991 collective bargaining agreement expired on December 31, 1993, and although SRT Communications continued to provide post-retirement health benefits to the Bensons for over fourteen years after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, it did so as a matter of business discretion and not because of a contractual obligation. The district court dismissed the Bensons' claims against SRT Communications. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the Bensons' action was governed by federal law and they failed to raise a disputed issue of material fact.

Dr. Carroll Meador filed a complaint against Mississippi Baptist Health Systems, Inc. (MBHS), Trustmark National Bank (Trustmark), and Doe Defendants 1 through 10, for breach of fiduciary duties, interference with fiduciary duties, interference with contract rights, interference with prospective business advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, deceit, fraud, and retaliatory discharge. The complaint stemmed from the doctor's employment with MBHS and a large line of credit he obtained from Trustmark. A dispute between the parties ended with the bank suing the doctor for defaulting on the loan, and the doctor declaring bankruptcy. Several defendants sought to remove the case to the federal district court. The district court granted remand of the case, finding the federal bankruptcy proceedings in the case had been concluded and only state claims remained. Then Defendants Trustmark, MBHS and several codefendants filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. The doctor appealed the ultimate outcome of the trial court's decision in favor of Defendants. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike portions of the doctor's affidavit, and in denying Trustmark and MBHS' motions for summary judgment. The Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.