Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Defendant entered into an Employment Agreement with his employer before the employer entered into a merger. After defendant was terminated by his employer and post-merger disputes arose as to the amounts his employer owed him, defendant filed a demand for arbitration under the Employment Agreement's arbitration provision. The employer commenced this action to enjoin the arbitration as preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The employer alleged federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because the severance dispute "arises out of an [ERISA] employee benefit plan" and therefore state law claims were preempted, and supplemental jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1367 over non-ERISA claims. The court considered ERISA's statutory language, purpose, and historical context and held that an individual contract providing severance benefits to a single executive employee was not an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of section 1002(1). The court also held that ERISA preempted state laws that "relate to" an employee benefit plan. Consequently, further questions arose because the Employment Agreement included two provisions that could "relate" to the Employment Agreement to other programs of the employer that were ERISA plans. As neither parties nor the district court considered this jurisdictional issue, the court remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Nevada state court against his employer, alleging that the employer failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees overtime and minimum wages, listing causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(b), under Nevada labor laws, and for breach of contract. At issue was whether a rejected offer of judgment for the full amount of a putative class representative's individual claim mooted a class action complaint where the offer preceded the filing of a motion for class certification. The court held that where a defendant made an unacceptable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment that fully satisfied a named plaintiff's individual claim before the named plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, the offer did not moot the case so long as the named plaintiff could still file a timely motion for class certification. Once filed, a timely motion for class certification related back to the time of the filing of the complaint. The court further held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that plaintiff could no longer file a timely motion of class certification; that it erred in refusing to allow plaintiff to abandon his FLSA claims; and that it erred in holding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.100 abrogated plaintiff's breach of contract claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

This case arose when appellant alleged claims of tortuous interference with contract or business expectancy and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-101, et seq. Appellant subsequently sought a temporary retraining order and preliminary injunction after appellee terminated appellant's patient privileges at a residential nursing home. The court held that appellant did not meet the factors in the Dataphase Syst. Inc. v. C.L. Syst., which evaluated whether to issue an injunction. Consequently, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and the judgment was affirmed.

This case arose when plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant under which he was entitled to advancement of expenses incurred in defending several actions arising out of his employment with defendant (Indemnification Agreement). At issue was whether the Special Master's fees fell within the definition of "Expenses" under the Indemnification Agreement. The court held that, in accordance with the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, defendant was solely responsible for any fees arising from a reasonableness review conducted by a special master. Therefore, the Special Master's fees were to be paid by defendant, along with any future amounts arising from similar proceedings before the Special Master.

Spectrum Health -- Kent Community Campus (Spectrum) withdrew recognition from its employees' union after receiving a petition indicating that the union no longer had majority support. The NLRB found this action unlawful because it occurred within the first three years of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, during which time a union enjoyed a conclusive presumption of majority support. The court held that the NLRB properly interpreted the term of the collective bargaining agreement and that Spectrum waived its objections to the bargaining order by failing to raise them in a timely manner before the NLRB. Accordingly, the court denied Spectrum's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement.

Employee was injured while working in Minnesota for Wisconsin-based Employer. Employee applied for Wisconsin and Minnesota workers' compensation benefits. Employer's insurance company, Travelers Insurance, covered the Wisconsin benefits but denied the claim for Minnesota benefits based on an exclusion of Minnesota coverage in Employee's policy. Employee then filed a claim for Minnesota benefits with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. After settling the claim, the Department pursued a petition for reimbursement it had filed against Employer. A compensation judge found that Employer was not insured for Minnesota workers' compensation liability and ordered Employer to reimburse the Department. The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed, concluding that Employer was entitled to coverage from Travelers under the reasonable expectations doctrine. On review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of a recent Court decision clarifying that the doctrine should not be used to provide coverage in contravention of unambiguous policy terms. On remand, the WCCA again reversed the compensation judge. On review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the WCCA had no authority to declare unambiguous language of an insurance contract to be invalid and unenforceable because the exclusion conflicted with Wisconsin statutory provisions and public policy.

While Timothy Allen worked as a sales associate for respondent Burnet Realty, he executed agreements to participate in respondent's legal administration program (LA Program). Under the LA Program contracts, Allen and respondent agreed to an allocation of expenses should a dispute arise related to Allen's work for respondent. In litigation commenced after he stopped working for respondent, Allen claimed that respondent violated Minn. Stat. 60K.47 because the LA Program contracts were insurance, and, as a result, respondent was required to be, but was not, authorized to engage in the business of insurance in Minnesota. Allen also claimed other relief on the basis that the contracts were insurance. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent, concluding that the contracts were not contracts of insurance. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to respondent, holding that the LA Program was not "insurance" under statutory definitions on statute or case law.

Petitioner Glenda Barron began working for Respondent Labor Finders of South Carolina in Respondent's Charleston office around 1990.  During petitioner's employment, Respondent planned to open a second office location in the Charleston area and informed Petitioner she would be promoted to regional sales manager for both Charleston locations.  In 2004, petitioner signed an agreement acknowledging her status as an at-will employee and setting her compensation as "straight commission" of 3% of customer payments deposited and posted by both Charleston offices each week, to be paid within ninety days of the invoice date. The second Charleston office opened in September 2004 and began earning income that November.  In January of the following year, Petitioner became concerned that respondent had not paid her the full amount of commissions she had earned. The supervisor contacted respondent's owner, who acknowledged that, due to an oversight, he forgot to pay Petitioner the commissions from the new Charleston location.  Petitioner never filed a written complaint with the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, as outlined by the Payment of Wages Act (Act). Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment the next day, stating it was forced to downsize in light of recent budget cuts.  Eight or nine days later, Respondent issued Petitioner a check in excess of the amount she was owed for commissions. Petitioner sued, alleging violations of the Act, breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.  The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent as to all causes of action. Petitioner appealed the entry of summary judgment as to her wrongful termination claim.  The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner argued on appeal that the Court of Appeals erred in holding she could not maintain a wrongful termination claim under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.  While the Supreme Court agreed the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis, the Court nonetheless affirmed the decision: "[a]lthough we agree. . . that there is no statutory remedy within the Act that would preclude an employee from maintaining a wrongful termination action, we nevertheless decline to address whether the public policy exception applies when an employee is terminated in retaliation for filing a wage complaint with the Department of Labor.  We find the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment because there is simply no evidence the Act was ever implicated."  Petitioner never filed a complaint with the Department of Labor as required by the Act, nor did she ever indicate to respondent she had filed or intended to file a complaint.  "Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner, there is no genuine issue of material fact whether petitioner was terminated in retaliation for availing herself of the protections of the Act."

Petitioner sought review of three decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) affirming in part and reversing in part the ALJ's findings with respect to allegations that AM Property Holding Corporation (AM) participated in a scheme with two successive cleaning contractors to avoid a bargaining obligation with petitioner after AM purchased a certain building. At issue was whether the NLRB erred by finding that: (1) AM was not a joint employer with either contractors; (2) the NLRB was precluded from determining whether one contractor was individually a successor employer to Clean-Right, the in-house cleaning division of the former owner of the building because the General Counsel had not litigated a violation based on that theory; and (3) petitioner was not entitled to additional remedies. The court rejected the first and third claims of error, but concluded that as to the second, the NLRB misunderstood its authority to determine whether one of the contractors was individually a successor employer to Clean-Right. Therefore, the court remanded so that the NLRB could reconsider this issue.

Defendant Four Rivers Packing Company operated an onion packing plant and hired Plaintiff Stuart Mackay as the company's "field man." Plaintiff had been in the onion business for decades and knew many onion farmers. Four Rivers through its general manager Randy Smith (Smith) offered Plaintiff a job that involved purchasing enough onions to keep Four Rivers' packing shed stocked at a price that Smith would set. Plaintiff contended that Smith offered him a long-term employment contract. From 2000 to 2002, financial and managerial setbacks made it difficult for Four Rivers to operate its business, and for Plaintiff to acquire onions at prices set by Smith in order to keep the sheds stocked. In 2003, Four Rivers laid Plaintiff off. Plaintiff filed suit in 2004 alleging breach of the employment contract. At trial following a remand, Four Rivers contended that the parties had not entered into an employment contract for any specified term. A jury would return a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. In a special verdict form, the jury found that the parties had entered into a long term contract of "up to ten years, or such time as the Plaintiff retired." Four Rivers timely appealed, challenging jury instructions given at trial and the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found that the trial court properly instructed the jury and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the verdict. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment against Four Rivers.