Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (May 8, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

2d Cir.: Fireboat injury claims were not barred by state law. A volunteer firefighter was injured aboard a fire district’s firefighting vessel while responding to a boat fire on the Hudson River. He received benefits under New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law. After the fire district petitioned the district court to limit its liability, the firefighter sued the fire district alleging claims for unseaworthiness under Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85 (1946) and the Jones Act, and negligence under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The fire district moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion, holding that the firefighter “was not eligible to bring claims pursuant to the Jones Act or Sieracki,” and that New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law barred the firefighter from bringing his claim. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the district court erred in finding that the firefighter was not eligible for Sieracki seaman status. The court held that Sieracki seaman status is available to land-based workers, does not require work primarily aiding navigation, and survived the 1972 LHWCA amendments for workers. The court also held that New York’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law did not bar the firefighter’s “federal negligence claim under general maritime law” (In Re: In the Matter of the Complaint of Verplanck Fire District, No. 23-1218 (2d Cir. Apr. 30, 2026)).

2d Cir.: Trump, government waived right to seek substitution in defamation suit. A writer alleged in 2019 that then-sitting President Trump sexually assaulted her in 1996, and she later brought defamation claims after he denied the accusation in 2019 public statements made while in office, including statements to reporters. She sued Trump in state court alleging defamation. In 2022, the writer filed a second action “based on the Adult Survivors Act for sexual assault and for defamation based on a different statement Trump made in October 2022, when he was no longer President,” in which he called the allegations “a Hoax and a lie.” After a trial in the second case, a jury found that Trump sexually abused the writer in 1996 and defamed her in 2022, and awarded the writer $5 million. The district court later used that verdict to preclude re-litigation of liability issues in the 2019 defamation case. After a jury trial on the 2019 action, a second jury awarded the writer $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. While an appeal was pending, the Second Circuit denied a post-trial request to substitute the United States as the defendant under the Westfall Act. In another decision, the appellate panel “rejected Trump's attempt to reassert a defense based on presidential immunity, and affirmed the district court's rulings and the jury's damages award.” The government and Trump petitioned for rehearing en banc. The Second Circuit denied the motion. Judge Menashi dissented and stated that he would have granted rehearing because the panel wrongly found waiver of the Attorney General’s Westfall Act certification; misread the Westfall Act to bar post-trial substitution in a state-filed case; failed to treat White House press statements as within the scope of presidential duties; and refused to reconsider presidential immunity after Trump v. United States. Judge Chin, who was a member of the panel that decided the case, wrote in support of the denial of rehearing, contending that “the Government and Trump…waived substitution by failing to request it before the district court prior to trial,” and that “the 2025 request was untimely under the Westfall Act.” As to presidential immunity, Judge Chin noted that “[p]residential immunity was not raised for the first three years of [the] case;” that “Trump did not mention immunity in his answer to Carroll's complaint in state court;” and that Trump “did not invoke immunity when he moved to amend his answer after the case was removed in 2022.” Judge Chin wrote that the court correctly held that “presidential immunity is waivable,” that Trump waived it, and that the court “correctly denied the[] petitions for rehearing en banc” (Carroll v. Trump, No. 24-644 (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 2026)).

4th Cir.: No municipal liability for officer misconduct absent notice of risk. A woman alleged that in the months following a traffic stop, a Town of Sunset Beach, NC, police officer sexually assaulted her at her home on multiple occasions. She sued the town under Section 1983 and alleged the town was subject to municipal liability for (1) unconstitutional policies and customs and (2) failure to train and supervise its officers. She also asserted state law claims against it for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The parties agreed that the department did not have a particular written policy regarding sexual misconduct. The district court granted summary judgment to the town. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish municipal liability because she did not show that policymakers were deliberately indifferent to a known or obvious risk of sexual assault. Prior incidents involving officers’ consensual on-duty conduct were not similar enough to put the town on notice of a pattern of constitutional violations. The court also found no evidence that the town knew or should have known of this officer’s propensity for such misconduct, rejecting the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claims. Regarding the negligent hiring claim, although the plaintiff argued the town failed to review or recognize “red flags” in the officer’s background check, the problem was that under North Carolina law, the employer must be on notice of prior conduct or characteristics that suggest a propensity for the same or similar misconduct that injured the plaintiff and nothing in the officer’s application or background indicated a prior history of sexual assault. At most, the court stated, his application materials suggested a general concern about his “temperament,” his past infidelity toward his spouse, and a past allegation of domestic abuse (Mullen v. Town of Sunset Beach, No. 25-1526 (4th Cir. May 7, 2026)).

4th Cir.: Enforcement of SafeSport sanctions did not make private sports bodies state actors. Three equestrian trainers challenged discipline imposed by SafeSport and enforced by two Olympic-affiliated sports organizations, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOC) and the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF). The trainers sued SafeSport, the USOC, and the USEF, alleging that the sanctions deprived them of Fifth Amendment due process because they were imposed without pre-determination hearings, and that Congress unconstitutionally delegated governmental power to SafeSport. The sports organizations moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motions. The Fourth Circuit reversed only as to exhaustion, holding that one of the trainers was not required to arbitrate constitutional challenges that SafeSport arbitration could not resolve. The court otherwise affirmed, holding that the participants lacked standing to sue the USOC because SafeSport caused the alleged injuries and the committee could not redress them; that SafeSport, the USOC, and the USEF were private actors, not state actors subject to the Due Process Clause; and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the private nondelegation claim (Navarro v. United States Center for SafeSport, No. 25-1150 (4th Cir. Apr. 24, 2026)).

5th Cir.: Relator not entitled to attorney fees without share of FCA proceeds. A relator filed a False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam action against his former employer alleging fraud related to government contracts in Iraq. Specifically, he alleged that people working for his employer used mortuary trailers for delivery of consumable supplies, received kickbacks from vehicle suppliers, and billed the United States for prostitutes. He was dismissed by his employer after reporting the kickback scheme. The government intervened in the relator’s civil action, asserted additional claims, and ultimately settled those claims for over $13 million, but declined to pursue the relator’s original allegations. Ultimately, as a result a prior appeal, the relator did not receive a share of the settlement proceeds or associated attorney fees. He again sought attorney fees and costs on remand. The district court denied the motion and he appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1), a relator may recover attorney fees only if he receives a share of the proceeds from the action or settlement. Because the relator’s claims were not settled and he received no proceeds, he was not entitled to fees (United States ex rel. Conyers v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., No. 25-20194 (5th Cir. May 7, 2026)).

11th Cir.: Seaman’s negligence, ‘maintenance and cure’ claims were arbitrable. A seaman on a yacht who signed an employment agreement with a Cayman Islands employer requiring arbitration in the Cayman Islands injured his shoulder while helping recover an underwater scooter. He alleged that the captain caused the injury by dropping his radio and releasing the scooter’s weight onto him. He also alleged that the yacht parties denied proper care, made him continue working, hid him from guests, repatriated him without his belongings, and failed to provide “maintenance and cure.” He sued the employer, the yacht owner, the alleged beneficial owner, the captain, the yacht manager, and the insurer, asserting Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, failure to provide maintenance and cure, failure to treat, conversion, negligence, and breach of insurance contract claims. The yacht parties moved to compel arbitration under the New York Convention. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the employer could compel arbitration of the Jones Act, maintenance and cure, and failure-to-treat claims. The court held that the yacht owner and alleged beneficial owner could compel arbitration of the maintenance and cure and failure-to-treat claims (Chemaly v. Lampert, No. 24-10797 (11th Cir. Apr. 22, 2026)).

Cases: AttorneysFees TortClaims Arbitration Procedure RemediesDamages PublicEmployees CoverageLiability StateLawClaims Discharge Whistleblowers