Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Jul 11, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

D.C. Cir.: Documentary organizations lacked standing to challenge visa policy. Two documentary film organizations, which support documentary filmmakers globally, contested a State Department policy requiring visa applicants to disclose on visa applications their social media information from the past five years. The organizations argued that this policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming it hinders their core activities and chills speech. They sued the Department of State and Department of Homeland Security, through Secretaries Rubio and Noem, respectively. The organizations sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting organizational standing. One of the organizations also asserted associational standing. The district court found that the organizations “sufficiently alleged organizational standing,” but “failed to state a claim under the First Amendment or the Administrative Procedure Act.” The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the organizations appealed. The D.C. Circuit found that, even if the organizations demonstrated injuries-in-fact traceable to the policy, they failed to establish that “a favorable outcome would redress their claimed injuries.” The court found that the organizations lacked organizational and associational standing. The court reversed the district court’s finding of standing, vacated its order, and remanded the case for further proceedings (Doc Society v. Rubio, No. 23-5232 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2025)).

D.C. Cir.: Denial of pilot’s application to resume flying after anxiety treatment was arbitrary and capricious. A pilot, who suffers from anxiety and took leave for treatment, sought clearance to resume flying. The pilot had previously experienced adverse effects from an FAA-approved medication, Lexapro, was subsequently prescribed mirtazapine, and found it effective. The Federal Air Surgeon for the FAA denied his application, citing risks associated with mirtazapine, including “a significant side-effect of sedation or somnolence.” The Air Surgeon’s letter also noted that the pilot was denied because he suffered from optic neuritis, which could lead to multiple sclerosis; his medical record “contained a diagnosis of malignant melanoma;” and he suffered from obstructive sleep apnea. The D.C. Circuit found the FAA’s denial letter arbitrary and capricious, highlighting the agency's failure to provide an adequate explanation for its categorical disqualification of pilots using mirtazapine, despite the “six-month waiting period and individualized medical assessment” designed to evaluate such risks. The court vacated the FAA’s decision and remanded the case, requiring the agency to articulate a clear rationale for its policy. The court also found that the “shifting justifications” in the agency’s denial letters, discussing other rationales for denying the pilot’s application, “were, in some instances, illogical” (Solondz v. FAA, Nos. 24-1105 and 24-1284 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2025)).

1st. Cir.: PPE sales officer was not entitled to additional commissions. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a merchandise supplier rapidly engaged in the sale of personal protective equipment (PPE) to meet the urgent demand. The supplier enlisted a Massachusetts-based individual to facilitate these sales, promising her a commission on specific transactions. A formal agreement was established for a 6 percent commission on a PPE order for New York City, but disputes arose regarding her entitlement to commissions on subsequent orders. After a bench trial, the district court awarded her a commission for the New York order but denied her claims on other transactions, citing a lack of subsequent agreements. Both parties appealed—the supplier contested the commission award, while the individual argued for additional payments on the other contracts. The First Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, finding the supplier’s objections meritless and affirming that no further express or implied contracts existed for additional commissions (Alaniz v. Bay Promo, LLC, Nos. 24-1007 and 24-1045 (1st Cir. July 2, 2025)).

Cases: Immigration Procedure IndividualRights FederalRegulations Covid19 StateLawClaims ContractClaims