Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Jun 20, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

2d Cir.: Surgeon could not bring ERISA claim in his name on behalf of patient. A surgeon affiliated with a medical practice sought to recover payments from a union’s self-funded insurance plan for surgical services provided to a patient, who was a plan beneficiary. The surgeon, holding a power of attorney for the patient, claimed the union failed to fully reimburse the medical practice. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that a power of attorney does not equate to an assignment of claims, thus barring the surgeon from pursuing the ERISA claim on the patient’s behalf. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the surgeon lacked Article III standing because he was suing in his own name rather than on behalf of the patient and noted that a power of attorney “does not ‘transfer an ownership interest in [a] claim,’ but instead only ‘authorizes the grantee to act as an agent or an attorney-in-fact for the grantor.’” However, the appeals court remanded the case, allowing the district court to consider whether the patient could be substituted as the real party in interest (Kakare v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers Local 580, No. 22-2874 (2d Cir. Jun. 9, 2025)).

4th Cir.: Court lacked jurisdiction to hear challenge to USCIS’s adjudication hold policy. A husband and wife, who are nationals of India, applied for legal permanent residency based on employment, but their applications were stalled when demand exceeded available visas, prompting the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) to implement its adjudication hold policy. They argued this constituted unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act and sued the USCIS and State Department. After the district court held that it lacked jurisdiction due to the jurisdiction-stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), the couple sought mandamus to compel immediate adjudication. The Fourth Circuit examined whether 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over such challenges, and aligned with the Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits in concluding that it does. The court determined that the USCIS’s policy is a discretionary decision within the scope of the Attorney General's authority under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1255(a), which precludes judicial review. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the statutory framework grants USCIS the discretion to manage visa supply and demand, including the adjudication hold policy, without judicial interference (Kale v. Alphonso-Royals, No. 23-1799 (4th Cir. Jun. 3, 2025)).

8th Cir.: Statute of frauds, lack of evidence doom medical resident’s suit against university, hospital. A former medical resident who entered into a “Lab-Residency Contract” with a university-sponsored residency program and its affiliated hospital—under which he would relocate his “successful research laboratory focused on 3D printing” to St. Louis, and the school and hospital would “train him for five years” in its anesthesiology program—alleged that he was coerced into resigning due to a hostile, deteriorating relationship with his supervisors, and that the supervisors, residency program, and hospital hindered his ability to transfer to another program by failing to provide records to inquiring institutions, and by making defamatory comments about him. He filed suit alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and business expectancies, fraudulent inducement, and defamation under Missouri Law. The residency program and hospital counterclaimed alleging unauthorized access to an employee’s email under the Missouri Computer Tampering Act (MCTA). The district court dismissed claims based on the Lab-Residency Contract finding them unenforceable under the statute of frauds, and dismissed the tortious interference and fraudulent inducement claims. On summary judgment, the court dismissed the remaining breach of contract claims against the hospital because it had no contractual duty to manage or evaluate residents under the residency agreements. Additionally, the court found no evidence of defamatory statements made by program supervisors. The court also dismissed the hospital and program’s MCTA counterclaims as moot after the resident tendered full payment for compensatory damages. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s rulings, finding that the statute of frauds barred enforcement of the alleged five-year contract, the residency agreements unambiguously delegated resident management duties to the university, and the lack of evidence undermined the resident’s tort and fraud claims (Weisman v. Barnes Jewish Hospital, No. 24-1864 (8th Cir. Jun. 10, 2025)).

Cases: Procedure Immigration StateLawClaims ContractClaims TortClaims