Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Aug 21, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

1st Cir.: Insurer not required to pay $3K judgment from employee’s pregnancy bias claim. An insurer was not required to pay a $303,592 judgment arising from a former employee’s pregnancy-discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against her employer. The employee first filed an administrative discrimination complaint in 2019 and later sued her employer in 2021, obtaining a default judgment. Both filings stemmed from the same alleged misconduct and therefore qualified as “related claims” under the insurance policy. Because the employer received notice of the 2019 administrative complaint before the policy period began, the later lawsuit was treated as having been made at the same earlier date and fell outside the policy’s coverage period. The court rejected the estate’s argument that a later employment-practices endorsement overrode the policy’s related-claims provision, concluding that the policy’s provisions worked together and did not conflict. As a result, the insurer had no obligation to cover the judgment (Urena v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, No. 25-2054 (1st Cir. Aug. 11, 2026)).

2d Cir.: Dismissal of employee’s SOX whistleblower claim upheld. The Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of a former employee’s Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation claims as untimely. The employee alleged that GE retaliated against him for raising compliance concerns by selecting him for a layoff and later refusing to rehire him despite dozens of job applications. The appeals court found that he knew about the layoff when he was notified in April 2019 and should have known by March 2020 that GE was not rehiring him, yet he did not file his whistleblower complaint with OSHA until December 2020—well beyond the law’s 180-day filing deadline. The court also rejected his argument that the deadline should be extended because GE concealed its actions, concluding that he already had enough information to pursue his claims before the filing period expired. As a result, the court denied his petition for review (Mehrotra v. U.S. Department of Labor, No. 23-7798 (2d Cir. Aug. 11, 2026)).

7th Cir.: Insurer had no duty to defend wrongful death lawsuit. An workers’ compensation insurer had no duty to defend a metal manufacturer in a wrongful-death lawsuit arising from the death of the manufacturing company’s employee. The employee’s estate alleged the company knew its forging equipment posed serious hazards, ignored prior safety violations, failed to install available safety upgrades, and continued exposing workers to dangerous conditions. Those allegations described, at most, gross negligence or recklessness—not the kind of deliberate intent required under Indiana law to take a workplace injury claim outside the state’s workers’ compensation system. Because the allegations fit within the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy framework, the employer’s liability policy excluded coverage. Even if the complaint’s allegation that the company acted with “actual intent” to injure the employee were accepted as true, coverage still would not exist because the policy excluded intentionally caused injuries and covered only accidental injuries. In short, the claim fell into a coverage gap: if the death was accidental, workers’ compensation exclusivity barred coverage; if it was intentional, the policy’s intentional-injury exclusion barred coverage. As a result, the insurer had no obligation to defend the employer in the underlying lawsuit (Insurance Co. of the West v. High Performance Alloys, Inc., No. 25-1327 (7th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026)).

8th Cir.: Employer’s petition for review headline properly dismissed. An employee who served as a miners’ representative was fired shortly after he participated in a mine safety inspection. An ALJ found the company unlawfully discriminated against him and ordered it to pay back pay and civil penalties. While seeking review of that ruling, the company failed to comply with a commission order requiring it to provide copies of two court cases it had cited. After the company ignored the deadline and later failed to produce the cases, the commission concluded that the cited cases appeared to be fabricated and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, however, the company focused on constitutional arguments attacking the underlying discrimination ruling rather than the commission’s dismissal order. The Eighth Circuit held that appellate rules require a party to clearly identify the specific order it wants reviewed, and because the company’s petition referenced only the commission’s dismissal and reconsideration orders—not the administrative law judge’s merits decision—the court could not consider arguments directed at that earlier ruling. As a result, the petition was dismissed without reaching the constitutional issues (MOSenecaManufacturer, LLC dba American Tripoli v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, No. 25-1349 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2026)).

11th Cir.: FRA safety rule upheld. In a challenge brought by several railroads and industry groups, the Eleventh Circuit upheld a Federal Railroad Administration rule generally requiring freight trains to operate with at least two crew members unless a railroad can show that a one-person crew is at least as safe. The railroads argued that the agency lacked authority for the rule, relied on insufficient evidence, ignored costs, and improperly changed course after previously declining to regulate crew size. The court rejected those arguments, finding that Congress gave the FRA broad authority to issue railroad-safety regulations and that the agency reasonably relied on safety research, industry trends, accident data, and public comments describing situations in which a second crew member helped prevent harm or respond to emergencies. The court concluded that the FRA adequately explained its decision and acted within its authority, leaving the crew-size rule in place (Florida East Coast Railway LLC v. Federal Railroad Administration, No. 24-11076 (11th Cir. Aug. 11, 2026)).

Cases: CoverageLiability Discrimination FederalRegulations Procedure Retaliation Whistleblowers