AELE Seminars:
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
Jan. 14-17, 2019 -
Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
May 6-9, 2019– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for more information about all AELE Seminars
© Copyright, 2018 by A.E.L.E., Inc.
Contents may be downloaded, stored, printed or copied,
but may not be republished for commercial purposes
ISSN 0164-6397
An employment law publication for
law enforcement,
corrections and the fire/EMT services
Cite this issue as:
2018 FP November
Click here to view information on the editor of this publication.
Access the multiyear Employment Law Case Digest
Return
to the monthly publications
menu
Report non-working links here
Some links are to PDF files - Adobe Reader™
can be used to view contents.
Age Discrimination – General
Arbitration Procedures (3 cases)
Collective Bargaining
Fair Labor Standards Act – Overtime in General
Handicap/Abilities Discrimination – In General
Handicap/Abilities Discrimination – “Regarded as” Disabled
Retaliatory Personnel Actions
Union Activity
Report non-working links here
AELE Seminars:
Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues
Jan. 14-17, 2019 -
Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
May 6-9, 2019– Orleans Hotel, Las Vegas
Click here for more information about all AELE Seminars
MONTHLY CASE DIGEST
Some of
the case digests do not have a link to the full opinion.
• Most Federal District Court opinions can be accessed via PACER. Registration is
required; nominal fees
• BNA arbitration awards can be obtained for a fee, from BNA Plus
|
Age Discrimination - General
The issue in this case initiated by the EEOC was whether the contribution rates of the county’s age-based employee retirement benefit plan were permissible based on financial considerations or whether they violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The trial court found that the county violated the ADEA by imposing disparate plan contribution rates based on age. A federal appeals court vacated an order denying the EEOC's request for retroactive monetary relief from the county. The court ruled that retroactive monetary awards, such as the back pay sought here, were mandatory legal remedies under the ADEA upon a finding of liability. The court's conclusion was not altered by the county’s contention that the EEOC unduly delayed the investigation. Therefore, the court ordered a determination of the amount of back pay to which the affected employees were entitled under the ADEA. EEOC v. Baltimore County, #16-2216, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 26644 (4th Cir.).
Arbitration Procedures
After a police officer was fired for making false statements, his union filed a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator determined that there was not just cause for termination and reinstated the officer. The city went to court to commence an action to vacate the arbitrator’s award, arguing that it was contrary to public policy. A trial court judge confirmed the arbitration award. The highest court in Massachusetts upheld this result, ruling that where the arbitrator found that the officer’s statements were not intentionally false and did not lead to a wrongful arrest or prosecution or result in any deprivation of liberty or denial of civil rights, the arbitrator’s award of reinstatement did not violate public policy. City of Pittsfield v. Local 447 International Brotherhood of Police Officers, #SJC-12350, 480 Mass. 634, 2018 Mass. Lexis 688, 2018 WL 4762406 (Mass.).
A deputy county constable who was fired went to court to try to compel the county to participate in a binding arbitration under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between the county and its deputy constables’ bargaining association. An intermediate Texas state appeals court dismissed the case, ruling that deputy constables were not “police officers” under a state statute and therefore have no right to bargain collectively with their public employers. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that its prior decision in Jefferson County v. Jefferson County Constables Ass’n, #16-0498, 2018 Tex. Lexis 598, in which it held that the Texas Fire and Police Employee Relations Act applies to deputy constables because they qualify as “police officers” under the Act’s definition of that term, resolved the issue presented in this case and required reversal of the court of appeals’ judgment. Stines v. Jefferson County, Texas, #17-0623, 550 S.W.3d 178, 2018 Tex. Lexis 555, 2018 WL 2992605 (Tex.).
Collective Bargaining
A federal appeals court granted an employer’s review of an NLRB order finding that it had committed an unfair labor practice by failing to bargain with a union before terminating five correctional employees. The NLRB held that the employer was liable for a substantially longer period of back pay after the parties bargained over the effects of an impasse and then held the impasse was unlawful. The federal appeals court held that the order was not supported by substantial evidence because there was no substantial evidence to support the finding that the parties did not reach a lawful impasse. Therefore, the court remanded to the NLRB to assess more carefully whether the employer’s offer to the union exceeded the required amount. On remand, the Board may find that the employer reached a lawful impasse and therefore owed each employee only two weeks of back pay. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association v. NLRB, #16-1328, 894 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
A federal appeals court upheld the decertification of two related class actions brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by LAPD officers, alleging a pervasive, unwritten policy discouraging the reporting of overtime. The court held that the officers can appeal a decertification order when they were dismissed from the collective action before final judgment and without prejudice to their individual FLSA claims. The court ruled that opt-in plaintiffs are parties to the collective action, and an order of decertification and dismissal disposes of their statutory right to proceed collectively. Therefore, they had standing to appeal and may do so after the interlocutory decertification order to which they are adverse merges with final judgment. The court also held that the collective actions in this case were properly decertified and the officers properly dismissed for failure to satisfy the “similarly situated” requirement of the FLSA. The court’s review of the record demonstrated that the officers failed, as a matter of law, to create a triable question of fact regarding the existence of a department-wide policy or practice. Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, #15-56990, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 25951, 2018 WL 4354379 (9th Cir.).
|
• Report non-working links here
Federal Prison Policies: Staff Personal Weapons Storage, Program Statement #5575.01, Federal Bureau of Prisons (Sept. 5, 2018).
Reference:
- Abbreviations of laws, law reports and agencies used in our publications.
- AELE’s list of employment law resources
First Amendment Related—See also, Retaliatory Personnel Actions
Retirement Rights and Benefits – See also, Age Discrimination
|