Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Jul 10, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

7th Cir.: New Zealand had stronger connection to sex trafficking claims. A former live-in nanny alleged that her employer repeatedly sexually assaulted her in New Zealand after she was hired to care for the employer's child. She brought claims in federal court for sex trafficking, forced labor, trafficking of forced labor, and conspiracy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. She also asserted assault, battery, emotional distress, and negligence claims under Wisconsin law. The employer moved to dismiss the action under forum non conveniens. The district court granted the motion, and the nanny appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that New Zealand was an “available and adequate” forum, noting that the country provided “better access to evidence than the United States.” The court concluded that New Zealand had a “stronger connection to the dispute” and that international comity concerns favored litigation in New Zealand (Pavlovich v. Gaiman, No. 25-2754 (7th Cir. June 29, 2026)).

2d Cir.: Union’s challenge to fossil fuel bans not revived on appeal. Trade associations and unions sued the City of New York regarding New York City and New York State laws that barred “the use of fossil-fuel-powered appliances in new buildings.” They alleged the laws were “preempted under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act’s express preemption provision,” and sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The city moved to dismiss, which the district court granted. The trade groups appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed. It held that “the challenged laws are not preempted under EPCA” and the statute “does not directly regulate the availability of fossil-fuel-powered appliances.” The court held that the EPCA “promotes national energy conservation goals” and “does not preclude these particular state and local efforts to regulate the use of fossil fuels” (Association of Contracting Plumbers of the City of New York, Inc. v. City of New York; Mulhern Gas Co., Inc. v. Mosley, Nos. 25-977, 25-2041 (2d Cir. June 30, 2026)).

8th Cir.: OSHA penalty collection suit was barred by limitations period. A trucking and towing company failed to pay OSHA citations that became final orders in 2017 after it did not contest the penalties. OSHA referred the debts to the Treasury Department, which in turn referred them to two collection agencies. After the company’s owner refused to pay, the government sued under the Debt Collection Improvement Act to collect the unpaid penalties and related charges. The company moved to dismiss the action “as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2462,” which “imposes a five-year limitations period on the government” to bring an action to enforce penalties under the statute. The district court denied the motion, and granted summary judgment to the government, holding that “[Section] 2462 did not apply to a collection of debt under the DCIA.” On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed. The court held that OSHA penalties remain penalties when collected as debts under the Debt Collection Improvement Act. The court held that the debt was a penalty, and that “Section 2462 applies to collections.” The court further held that the limitations period began “when the penalties became final orders” in 2017. Because the government did not file suit until January 2023, “after the statute of limitations had run,” the collection suit was untimely. As such, the court found that the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the collection action (United States v. I-44 Truck Center and Wrecker Service, LLC, No. 25-1828 (8th Cir. July 1, 2026)).

Cases: Procedure TortClaims StateLawClaims UnionsMembers Safety RemediesDamages