Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Mar 7, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

1st Cir.: Puerto Rican female Army employee failed to show pretext. A 62-year-old Puerto Rican female employee, who had worked as a Child Youth and School Services Coordinator for the Army “for nearly three decades,” sued her employer alleging age discrimination under the ADEA; and sex and race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. After filing an EEOC complaint in 2014 alleging national origin discrimination, she alleged she was discriminated against and reassigned to a nonsupervisory role after two investigations into her management style. The investigations found that the employee’s authoritative leadership style fostered a toxic work environment, that she did “not always treat subordinates with dignity and respect,” and that she “routinely employed favoritism, intimidating language, and retaliatory tactics in dealing with her subordinates.” She was eventually reassigned and removed from management. She sued the Army, which moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, finding that the employee failed to comply with Local Rule 56 by not properly contesting the Army's statement of undisputed facts, and that she did not make a prima facie case for any of her claims. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Army provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the reassignment, and that the employee failed to demonstrate that this reason was pretextual (Quintana-Dieppa v. Department of the Army, No. 22-1858 (1st Cir. Feb. 25, 2025)).

4th Cir.: DOL’s wage rule regarding adverse effect wage rates upheld. A group of agricultural employers and an H-2A filing agent sued the Secretary of Labor to block the DOL from enforcing a 2023 rule “altering the methodology it uses to set AEWRs [adverse effect wage rates].” While the DOL’s previous methodology “established a single AEWR for a given geographic region,” the new Rule “takes a bifurcated approach that sets AEWRs by occupation and by region.” The agricultural employers alleged that the DOL failed to “consider the Rule’s impact on (1) farm owners’ costs, and (2) illegal immigration,” and sought a preliminary injunction and a TRO. The district court denied the motions, finding that the injunction would “harm H-2A workers, domestic workers, and certain employers.” The employers appealed the decision. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding that “the balance of the equities and the public interest did not tip in favor of an injunction,” and that there was no abuse of discretion (USA Farm Labor, Inc. v. Micone, No. 23-2108 (4th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025, unpublished)).

4th Cir.: District court failed to conduct immunity analysis. During an operation by six law enforcement officers to execute a search warrant, one of the officers mistakenly shot a fellow officer, believing him to be the suspect. As a result of the incident, the injured officer suffered permanent injuries, leading him to sue the other officer, asserting claims under Section 1983 for excessive force, as well as state law claims for negligence, assault and battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The other officer sought summary judgment, claiming her actions were lawful and that she was entitled to qualified immunity for the federal claim and public officers’ immunity for the state claims. The district court denied her motion, citing genuine disputes of material fact. However, the court failed to conduct the necessary legal analysis to determine whether a clearly established constitutional right was violated, as required for assessing qualified immunity. On appeal, Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded “to enable [the district court] to conduct the appropriate analysis” (Belton v. Loveridge, No. 23-2046 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2025)).

8th Cir.: Statute of repose barred wrongful death claims. An employee was fatally injured by a rewinder machine installed as part of an industrial lamination line at a manufacturing plant. The rewinder was delivered and installed a North American subsidiary of a Swiss equipment manufacturer, and was manufactured by an Italian subsidiary. Following the employee’s death, the estate, through its personal representative, sued the equipment installer, alleging product liability. The equipment installer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were “untimely and barred by an Arkansas statute of repose.” The district court granted the motion, and the estate appealed. The Eighth Circuit found that the equipment provider's involvement in installing the rewinder constituted “construction of an improvement to real property,” thus falling within the statute's protection. The court held that the statute of repose barred the action, because the lawsuit was “brought more than four years after the installation of the rewinder” (Cearley v. Bobst Group North America Inc., No. 23-1101 (8th Cir. Feb. 21, 2025)).

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination SexDiscrimination NationalOrigin Safety StateLawClaims Procedure Immigration WageHour CoverageLiability