Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Jul 24, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

3d Cir.: Pump maker owed no duty beyond limited equipment training. The U.S. Army hired a company to upgrade paint-mixing pumps in the paint-mixing room at a Pennsylvania Army Depot. One of the company’s subcontractors bought the pumps from a pump manufacturer, which agreed to “assist and train…personnel in the correct use, care and maintenance of the equipment.” Two months later, a paint thinner fire killed two employees and severely injured another. The fire occurred when workers changed a paint thinner drum while “wearing ordinary street clothes, not proper anti-static ones.” Workers and two estates sued several parties, and ultimately the pump manufacturer was the last remaining defendant, against which were left claims alleging negligence, negligently inflicted emotional distress, and wrongful death. They alleged that the pump manufacturer “failed to train the workers to operate the pumps safely.” The pump manufacturer moved for summary judgment and the district court, granting the motion, found the company did not owe the workers a duty of care “when it trained them on the paint-mixing equipment.” Affirming, the Third Circuit held that the manufacturer undertook only to “install paint pumps and provide basic operational training” and never agreed to provide “comprehensive safety training.” Nor did the manufacturer “assume all of the Depot’s duties to protect workers in the paint-mixing room” (Byers v. Finishing Systems, Inc., No. 25-1693 (3d Cir. July 20, 2026)).

4th Cir.: Postal customer was assaulted by employee, postmaster failed to intervene. A postal customer sued a postal employee, a postmaster, and the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act after a postal employee allegedly assaulted her inside a post office, and after the postmaster allegedly enabled the confrontation and refused to summon aid. The customer alleged negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness, as well as negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The federal government moved to dismiss after substituting itself for the employees. The district court granted the motion, finding that sovereign immunity and the intentional tort exception barred the claims, and the customer appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision. However, the court revived a narrow negligence claim against the government. The court found that the complaint plausibly alleged that the postmaster created a risk of harm by allowing the confrontation despite knowledge of the employee’s “alleged violent tendencies.” The court reversed and remanded as to this aspect of the complaint (Lusk v. Merchant, No. 23-6059 (4th Cir. July 14, 2026)).

8th Cir.: ERISA suit failed because participant alleged no injury in fact. An employee filed a putative class action alleging that his employer and two of its committees breached their fiduciary duties by using forfeited unvested 401(k) funds to offset employer contributions, in violation of ERISA provisions. The company moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and argued that the employee “failed to allege that he suffered an injury in fact and therefore failed to establish Article III standing.” The district court held that the employee “failed to plead an actual injury to himself traceable to [the company’s] use of forfeited funds,” and granted the motion, dismissing his complaint with prejudice. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that the complaint did not allege any injury to the employee's own account. The court also held that the district court “abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint with prejudice. The court remanded for entry of a dismissal without prejudice (Matula v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 25-2441 (8th Cir. May 12, 2026)).

Cases: Safety TortClaims Procedure PublicEmployees CoverageLiability PensionBenefitPlans