Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Appeals court cases of note, (Sep 19, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent federal appeals court decisions of interest to the labor and employment law community.

5th Cir.: No clear waiver of removal rights in employment dispute. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, alleging that the defendants engaged in a scheme to “breach employment agreements, misappropriate funds, embezzle, and defraud.” The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs sought to remand the case back to state court, invoking a contractual provision in three of the defendants’ agreements that specified venue in Harrison County, Mississippi, and waived objections to personal jurisdiction and venue. The district court interpreted this provision as a waiver of the defendants’ removal rights and remanded the case. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision, finding that the contractual language did not constitute a “clear and unequivocal waiver of removal rights.” The court noted that “[b]oth parties consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in federal and state court in Harrison County and waived their ‘objections’ to those forums” (Gulf Coast Pharmaceuticals Plus, L.L.C. v. RFT Consulting, Inc., No. 24-60480 (5th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025)).

5th Cir.: Employee of consulting firm was bound by arbitration agreement with firm’s client. A safety consultant working for a consulting firm, and contracted out to work for an oil company, sued the oil company alleging that he and others were improperly classified as independent contractors and paid a daily rate without overtime, in violation of the FLSA. The consulting firm had a master consulting agreement (MCA) with the consultant, which incorporated by reference a master agreement for support services (MSA) between the consulting firm and the oil company, mandating arbitration. The oil company and the consulting firm moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motions. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit found that the MCA clearly incorporated the MSA, binding the consultant to its arbitration provisions. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded (Ford v. ConocoPhillips, No. 22-20334 (5th Cir. Sept. 9, 2025, unpublished)).

6th Cir.: Employee’s testimony was excluded as double hearsay. A Black woman who worked at a manufacturing facility was terminated after accumulating attendance infractions under a collective bargaining agreement. The employee had previously been reinstated following a grievance settlement related to her termination for attendance issues, which she claimed were covered by approved FMLA leave. After her reinstatement, she committed additional attendance infractions and requested FMLA leave, which was denied due to insufficient working hours. The employee also reported incidents of sexual harassment to her supervisor. She was terminated shortly after reporting these incidents, and during the termination meeting, an HR representative allegedly told her that the decision-maker fired her due to her complaints about harassment and discrimination. The employee sued the company alleging retaliation under Title VII and Section 1981. The employer moved for summary judgment on all claims, which the district court granted, excluding the employee’s statement about the HR representative's comment as inadmissible double hearsay. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the HR representative's statement did not qualify for the hearsay exclusion for opposing party statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) because the representative’s role “did not include participating in making decisions to terminate and she lacked specific authorization to communicate anything beyond the fact that [the employee] was terminated for violating [the company’s] attendance policy.” Judge Mathis dissented, stating that the statement was not hearsay, and that “the district court erred in excluding it” (Hill v. TK Elevator Mfg., Inc., No. 24-5949 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025, unpublished)).

6th Cir.: Pregnancy discrimination claims revived due to fact issue regarding pretext. An ultrasonographer employed at a hospital in Michigan sued the hospital alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation, disability discrimination and retaliation, and interference and retaliation under the FMLA, following her layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic. The employee informed her supervisor of her pregnancy and requested accommodations, which were initially granted. However, after receiving a doctor’s note to avoid exposure to infectious diseases, the supervisor expressed disappointment and concern about department strain. Amidst a hospital-wide workforce reduction because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the supervisor recommended the employee for layoff based on productivity metrics. During her layoff, the supervisor decided not to inform the employee of a full-time position at another hospital location. When the employee later refused a part-time position, her employment ended. After she filed suit, the hospital moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the disability discrimination and retaliation claims, pregnancy-discrimination-based retaliation claims, and FMLA retaliation claims, but reversed the decision on pregnancy discrimination and FMLA interference claims. The court found that the employee presented sufficient evidence of pretext and discriminatory animus related to her pregnancy, and that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether her FMLA leave was a factor in her supervisor’s failure to inform her of a job opportunity at another location. Judge Murphy dissented, stating that he would have affirmed summary judgment as to the pregnancy discrimination claims, as the employee failed to show pretext (Bunnell v. William Beaumont Hospital, No. 24-1889 (6th Cir. Sept. 4, 2025, unpublished)).

Cases: Discrimination Arbitration PregnancyDiscrimination EvidenceDiscovery Covid19 ContractClaims TortClaims WageHour Overtime EmployeeLeave Retaliation Discharge