Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Dec 5, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

7th Cir.: Supervisors’ actions irresponsible, not deliberately indifferent. While serving a probation sentence, a female probationer was assigned a probation officer in 2012 who, after filing a petition to revoke her probation because she spurned his advances, “‘nonconsensually’ grope[d] her body” and subsequently sexually assaulted and raped her in 2013. The officer’s supervisors—a chief probation officer and a supervising judge—were aware of a prior complaint from another female probationer in 2011 alleging inappropriate conduct by the same officer, including sexually suggestive questions and physical contact in a stairwell. In this instance, the probationer called the rape hotline, the officer was fired following an investigation, and he was eventually sentenced to three years’ incarceration following a plea to official misconduct. The probationer sued the probation officer, supervisors, and others under Section 1983, and alleged that the supervisors violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity and were liable under a theory of supervisory liability. After the supervisors received summary judgment due to their “qualified immunity,” the female probationer appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that although the supervisors were personally involved in decisions that allowed the officer to resume supervising female probationers, the record did not show deliberate indifference because they lacked actual knowledge of impending harm (Bostic v. Murray, No. 23-1665 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025)).

3d Cir.: Sovereign immunity barred claims against commission members. Two former leaders of the United States Semiquincentennial Commission—created by Congress to plan the nation’s 250th anniversary—filed a state-court tort action alleging “defamation, false light, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy” against three fellow Commissioners. The Commissioners allegedly publicly accused the leadership of mismanagement and impropriety, which allegedly damaged reputations and led to the removal of the two former leaders. After the suit was filed, the Attorney General certified that the challenged statements were made within the scope of the Commissioners’ official duties, removed the case to federal court under the Westfall Act, substituted the United States as defendant, and moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. After the dismissal was granted, the former Commission leaders appealed. On appeal, the court held that the Commission qualifies as a federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act because Congress created it for a national purpose, staffed it with federal officials and appointees, funded it through appropriations, and exercised operational control. The court further concluded that the Commissioners, as federally appointed members acting on behalf of the Commission, are “employees of the government” and that their statements fell within the scope of their employment under Pennsylvania law. The court affirmed the dismissal (Giordano v. Hohns, No. 24-1305 (3d Cir. Nov. 18, 2025)).

4th Cir.: Statutes of limitation doom company’s claims against former president, product designer. A technology company formed to develop a specialized vehicle-mounted stairway benefitted from unpaid design work from the founder’s son, who was promised equity that never materialized due to the majority owner’s repeated vetoes. The son later obtained a patent on the product with his father’s assistance, prompting the majority owner to remove the father as president and sue the father and son alleging breach of fiduciary duties, trade secret misappropriation, business conspiracy, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of contract. Both individuals moved for summary judgment. The court held that most claims were time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations, finding that alleged wrongful acts—including the father’s assistance with the patent filing and misrepresentations regarding a nondisclosure agreement—occurred years before suit was filed. The remaining breach of contract claim failed because no nondisclosure agreement existed, and the unjust enrichment claim lacked evidence that the son derived any benefit from confidential information. The court affirmed summary judgment for both individuals and upheld an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the former president (Mission Integrated Technologies, LLC v. Clemente, No. 24-1932 (4th Cir. Nov. 12, 2025)).

6th Cir.: Union’s contractual interests, CBA obligations required intervention in excessive-force suit. Police officers entered a young man’s apartment “to arrest him on outstanding warrants,” and one officer fatally shot him as he sat up in bed, unarmed. The decedent’s estate filed a Section 1983 action against the city and its police chief, alleging that an official policy or custom of racially discriminatory policing and excessive force caused the death, and sought sweeping reforms to police disciplinary and investigative practices—reforms that would allegedly alter provisions of the city’s CBA with the police union. One month later, the union moved to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) or permissively under Rule 24(b), asserting that the requested relief would impair its “contractual right and a legal obligation, as the ‘exclusive collective bargaining representative of all sworn members of CPD below the rank of deputy chief.…’” The district court denied intervention, finding the union’s interest limited to potential remedies and adequately represented by the city. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that the union satisfied all four elements for intervention as of right: it demonstrated a “substantial legal interest in the subject matter of the case;” showed that its interests would be impaired absent participation; and established that the city may not adequately represent those interests. The court reversed the denial of intervention (Estate of Lewis v. City of Columbus, Ohio, No. 24-3846 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2025)).

Cases: Procedure CoverageLiability Labor PublicEmployees UnionsMembers