Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Jan 31, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent unpublished federal appeals court decisions of interest to the labor and employment law community.

3d Cir.: Terminated employee repeatedly sent coworkers sarcastic, hostile emails. An employee sued his former employer alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The employee had a history of sending hostile, sarcastic, and confrontational emails to coworkers and supervisors, which resulted in repeated counseling and warnings. After falling ill, the employee requested an accommodation, which was granted. However, he continued to send hostile emails and was ultimately terminated. After filing suit, the company was granted summary judgment, and the employee appealed the decision. The court found that the employee “failed to rebut [the company’s] proffered reason for his termination.” The court also rejected the retaliation claim. The district court’s decision was affirmed (Bello v. United Pan Am Financial Corp., No. 24-2052 (3d Cir. Jan. 23, 2025, nonprecedential)).

3d Cir.: Software engineer’s ADA, ADEA discrimination claims revived on appeal. A 48-year-old software engineer who has diabetes sued a technology company alleging that it refused to hire him based on discriminatory reasons. He asserted claims for disability discrimination under the ADA and age discrimination under the ADEA. He moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the district court dismissed the complaint. As to the ADA discrimination claim, the district court found that the software engineer failed to adequately exhaust his administrative remedies with the EEOC. The ADEA claim failed because the engineer failed to elaborate on the claim with specificity. On review, the Third Circuit held that the engineer had sufficiently alleged exhaustion by providing an EEOC charge number and a right-to-sue letter. Furthermore, the court clarified that Rule 8 does not require detailed factual specificity but “only enough facts to state a plausible claim.” Though the court agreed that the engineer’s complaint lacked sufficient detail to support a plausible inference of discrimination, it vacated the dismissal of the ADA and ADEA claims, allowing for amendment (Karupaiyan v. Wipro Ltd., No. 23-2424 (3d Cir. Jan. 14, 2025, nonprecedential)).

10th Cir.: Employee was terminated for violating work rules, disrespect, not discrimination. An African-American former employee of the City of Tulsa's IT department alleged that her suspensions and eventual termination were discriminatory and retaliatory actions due to her race, her association with a child with special needs, and her engagement in protected activities. The employee’s employment issues began when her request to work from home was denied, which was followed by three separate disciplinary actions stemming from workplace conflicts, policy violations, and alleged insubordination. The employee was terminated because she had “repeatedly violated the City’s work rules and ‘continue[d] to behave in an unprofessional, disrespectful, condescending, and threatening manner….’” She sued the city, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Section 1981 and Title VII, and associational discrimination and retaliation under the ADA. The city moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, concluding that the employee failed to show that “the City’s legitimate reasons for [its] actions were pretextual.” On appeal, the court affirmed the district court's decision, finding “no reasonable juror could find…that the City’s legitimate reasons for terminating [the employee] were pretextual” (Bell v. City of Tulsa, No. 23-5111 (10th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025, nonprecedential)).

11th Cir.: Terminated employee was incapable of performing job, failed to return to work. A UPS employee and Teamsters member suffered a knee injury that required surgery and physical therapy. After notifying UPS and the union of his injury, he submitted an FMLA application, which was denied because he “had not worked a sufficient number of hours in the preceding twelve months.” He did not return to work at UPS and was subsequently terminated for “unauthorized leave of absence.” The employee was later offered $250 by the company to clear his open grievances and was offered the ability to resign instead of being terminated. The company’s labor relations manager also offered to rehire him “if he had good, documented reasons for being absent.” The employee instead filed EEOC charges of discrimination and subsequently sued UPS and the union, alleging race discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS and the union, and the employee appealed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the employee was “physically incapable of performing the essential functions” of his job due to his injury and surgery, and that he failed to request a reasonable accommodation from UPS. The court also found that the employee could not establish a causal link between his protected activity and his termination (Massa v. Teamsters Local 79, No. 23-13855 (11th Cir. Jan. 23, 2025, unpublished)).

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge StateLawClaims PublicEmployees EmployeeLeave Labor UnionsMembers Procedure