Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A union representing graduate student workers at a university filed grievances after certain doctoral students working as research assistants in the psychology department were excluded from the weekly lists of union-represented employees. The union asserted that these students, who conducted lab-based research under faculty supervision and received funding, fit the definition of "Research Assistant" under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and should be included in the bargaining unit. The university argued that these students were not statutory "employees" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and therefore not eligible for union representation or inclusion in the bargaining unit.The grievances proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator found that the psychology doctoral students qualified as "Research Assistants" under the CBA based on its language, the parties’ history, and past practices, regardless of the funding source. The arbitrator ordered the university to include these students in the bargaining unit and provide lost benefits. The university challenged the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, arguing the arbitrator exceeded her authority and violated public policy. The district court denied the university’s motion to vacate and confirmed the arbitration award, granting costs but not attorney’s fees to the union.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s confirmation of the arbitration award de novo. The First Circuit held that the dispute was substantively arbitrable, the arbitrator’s interpretation of the CBA was plausible and drew from its essence, and the award did not violate public policy. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, allowing the arbitration award to stand. View "President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Harvard Graduate Students Union - UAW, Local 5118" on Justia Law

A police officer in Somerville, Massachusetts was terminated from his position following alleged misconduct connected to his use of an informant, which ultimately resulted in the informant attacking a third party. The officer did not initially disclose all relevant information during the investigation of the attack. After further internal investigation and public accusations, including statements made by city officials to the press, the officer was officially terminated. He challenged his termination by both pursuing arbitration under the police union’s collective bargaining agreement and by filing a civil suit, alleging his termination was retaliatory and violated his constitutional rights, as well as state law regarding interference with advantageous relations. While the lawsuit was pending, an arbitrator ordered his reinstatement but denied him back pay. Following this, the mayor placed the officer on paid administrative leave, which affected his ability to earn overtime and additional compensation.The case was first filed in Middlesex Superior Court and then removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district judge allowed the officer to seek damages at trial not only for the termination but also for being placed on paid leave after reinstatement, even though the officer never amended his complaint to include this post-arbitration event as a basis for liability. The district court permitted the jury to award damages for both the termination and the paid-leave decision, over the defendants’ repeated objections.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded that the district court erred in allowing the jury to award damages based on the paid-leave decision. The appellate court held that, absent an amended complaint or the defendants’ consent, new factual bases for liability such as the paid-leave decision could not be considered at trial. The First Circuit reversed the damages awarded for the paid-leave decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "DiFronzo v. City of Somerville" on Justia Law

Two Black firefighters employed by the Springfield Fire Department alleged racial and religious discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, claiming harassment beginning around 2014. One plaintiff, who is Muslim, reported being denied a promotion despite being the only eligible applicant, and later experienced unfavorable treatment regarding training, evaluations, and disciplinary actions compared to white colleagues. The other plaintiff, a Jehovah’s Witness, alleged discriminatory promotion practices and procedural irregularities that favored white candidates. Both plaintiffs asserted that the department tolerated and sometimes participated in hostile conduct, including racist and anti-Muslim social media posts by fellow firefighters, some of whom held supervisory positions. The plaintiffs claimed the fire department failed to protect them from harassment, even after formal complaints.After mediation failed, the plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserting violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, among other claims. The District Court dismissed several claims and defendants but allowed the core allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment against the City of Springfield to proceed. At trial, both sides presented evidence about departmental procedures, supervisor obligations, and the City’s response to the alleged harassment. The jury found in favor of the defendants on all counts, and the plaintiffs appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in responding to a jury question, nor did it err in its instructions regarding the relevance of Civil Service decisions, the First Amendment, or employer liability under Massachusetts law. The appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Savage v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

A physician assistant worked for a medical practice in New Hampshire for over a decade. During her employment, she had a series of contentious interactions with one of the practice’s orthopedic surgeons, who was also a partner and vice-president of the organization. The surgeon accused her of being disrespectful and ultimately insisted that he could not remain at the practice if she continued to work there. This ultimatum led the practice’s partners to vote unanimously to terminate her employment. However, the practice allowed her to continue working during a transition period while the parties negotiated a severance agreement and a possible independent contractor arrangement.After the employee raised concerns that her termination was driven by sex discrimination, the practice ended negotiations and immediately terminated her employment. She subsequently filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire against both the medical practice and the surgeon, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under federal and state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support her claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the sex discrimination claim, finding there was no genuine issue of material fact that her termination was motivated by gender bias rather than personal conflict. However, the court reversed summary judgment on the retaliation claim against the practice. The court held there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the practice accelerated her termination and withdrew an independent contractor opportunity in retaliation for her complaint of sex discrimination. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the retaliation claim. View "Russo v. New Hampshire Neurospine Institute, P.A." on Justia Law

Several employees of Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc. sued their employer, seeking prevailing wages under the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) for certain repair and replacement work they performed pursuant to a contract between Veolia and the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission. That contract was authorized by a 1997 Massachusetts Special Act, which provided that work falling within "the construction and design of improvements" remained governed by the PWA. The disputed work occurred during the contract’s second stage, which involved ongoing operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of wastewater facilities.After both sides moved for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled for Veolia. The court concluded that the employees’ work did not fall under "construction and design of improvements" as used in the Special Act and, relying on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts’s (SJC) decision in Metcalf v. BSC Group, Inc., determined that the structure of the procurement scheme made the PWA inapplicable to the service contract as a whole. The employees appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, reviewing the case, certified two questions regarding Massachusetts law to the SJC. The SJC clarified that "construction and design of improvements" in the Special Act is broader than the PWA’s definition of “construction” but does not include ordinary repairs or maintenance. The SJC also held that the Special Act was not incompatible with the PWA and that Metcalf was not controlling. Based on the SJC’s answers, the First Circuit held that the district court’s summary judgment for Veolia could not stand, reversed the order, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine which, if any, of the employees’ tasks fell within the statutory phrase. View "Nicholls v. Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns the estate administrators of a former employee, Juliana Rodriguez Morel, who alleged she was discriminated and retaliated against by her employer, Mammoth Tech, Inc., during her pregnancy. After initially filing an administrative complaint with the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights and the EEOC in 2019, Rodriguez Morel obtained a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. She then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. That court entered a default judgment against Mammoth in 2023, awarding damages and fees.Subsequently, in 2025, the estate administrators initiated a separate action in the same district court against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Mammoth’s insurer. They sought a declaratory judgment that Travelers was required to pay the losses Mammoth incurred as a result of the default judgment, arguing that the insurer’s policy provided coverage for the claims in question. Travelers moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that the policy did not provide coverage because Mammoth had received notice of the claims prior to the policy period, thus excluding coverage under the policy’s terms. The District Court agreed with Travelers and granted judgment on the pleadings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the insurance policy’s “Related Claims” provision applied, which meant that all related claims were considered made at the time the first such claim was made. Because the first notice of the employment discrimination claims was before the policy period, the policy did not cover the judgment. The First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that the administrators failed to show any conflict or ambiguity in the policy that would override the Related Claims provision. View "Urena v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America" on Justia Law

A professor at Dartmouth College’s Thayer School of Engineering, who is Muslim and of Arab-Egyptian descent, applied for tenure after six years of employment, consistent with his offer letter. He alleged that he was discouraged from advising a Muslim student group, removed from a research project, and denied access to campus data, which he believed impeded his work. His tenure application was reviewed by faculty who cited concerns about inflated accomplishments, high self-citation rates, less competitive grant funding, and poor teaching evaluations. The faculty voted overwhelmingly to deny tenure. An internal review committee found procedural errors in how the consequences of tenure denial were explained, allowing him to reapply, but found no discrimination. Separately, a student accused the professor of research misconduct for not crediting him as an author on a collaborative paper. An investigation committee ultimately found no research misconduct but concluded the professor’s conduct was unethical and recommended he not be allowed to collaborate with Dartmouth in the future.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted summary judgment to Dartmouth on all claims of discrimination and retaliation, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The professor appealed, challenging both the discrimination and retaliation rulings, as well as a discovery order.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of pretext or discriminatory animus under both Title VII and New Hampshire’s employment discrimination statute. The court determined that differences in qualifications and procedural issues did not support an inference of discrimination or retaliation. The summary judgment was affirmed, and the challenge to the discovery order was deemed moot due to the affirmed judgment. View "Farid v. Trustees of Dartmouth College" on Justia Law

John Buccieri, who is deaf and communicates primarily through American Sign Language, applied for a Chair Car Driver position with Brewster Ambulance Service, Inc., a medical transportation provider in Massachusetts. The job required frequent communications with dispatch, patients, and facility staff, as well as monitoring patients for emergencies. Buccieri requested to use Video Relay Services (VRS) and a phone holder as accommodations to facilitate communication with dispatch. Brewster considered his application and allowed him a ride-along in a Chair Car, but concerns arose about his ability to communicate and respond to emergencies, especially with patients and staff. Brewster ultimately declined to hire Buccieri, citing safety and operational concerns, and explored but rejected alternative positions for him.Buccieri sued Brewster in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to hire and failure to engage in the interactive process required by the ADA. The case proceeded to a jury trial, which found for Brewster on the failure-to-hire claim, concluding that accommodating Buccieri would have imposed an undue hardship or posed a direct threat. However, the jury found for Buccieri on the interactive process claim, indicating Brewster had not sufficiently engaged in dialogue to identify reasonable accommodations.Following the verdict, Brewster filed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law. The district court granted the motion, setting aside the jury's finding on the interactive process claim, and entered judgment for Brewster on all counts. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s order. The court held that, based on the evidence, no reasonable jury could conclude that a reasonable accommodation existed that would have allowed Buccieri to perform the essential communications functions of the driver positions without undue hardship to Brewster. View "Buccieri v. Brewster Ambulance Service, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff worked for over twenty years in various administrative roles for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in Puerto Rico, eventually becoming Secretary to the Assistant Special Agent in Charge. In 2016, after suffering a foot injury, she requested workplace accommodations, some of which were denied. She filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging discrimination based on disability and national origin. Subsequently, other DEA agents filed an EEO complaint against her, and she filed a retaliation complaint with the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General. A series of workplace conflicts followed, including a verbal altercation, revocation of outside work permission, and eventual suspension. After further absence and issues with communication with supervisors, she was reassigned to another office. An internal investigation led to her termination for insubordination and alleged lack of candor.She appealed her termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), arguing it was retaliatory and unsupported by evidence. The MSPB found no lack of candor, but upheld the insubordination charge and her termination. She then sought judicial review in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, which denied her discovery motions and granted summary judgment to the government, finding no prima facie case of retaliation and holding that the MSPB’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court held that the denial of the plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion for additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion, as she did not show good cause for her delay. On the merits, the court concluded that the MSPB’s finding of insubordination was supported by substantial evidence and that the plaintiff failed to show the employer’s stated reasons for termination were pretext for retaliation under Title VII. View "Hernandez v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A tenured professor at a university was terminated in 2022 following a classroom incident where students objected to terminology used in an assigned reading and a subsequent discussion of LGBTQ+ rights in Latin America. The professor alleged that her Department Chair encouraged students to submit complaints against her, and that there was a coordinated effort to undermine her reputation. After complaints were submitted, the university held a student meeting about the professor’s conduct, restricted some of her duties, and ultimately terminated her employment "for cause," citing continued misconduct and failure to fulfill faculty responsibilities. The professor appealed her termination to the Faculty Hearing Board, which upheld the decision by a narrow margin, citing procedural issues but attributing them to outdated dismissal procedures rather than prejudice. The Board found her teaching was not culturally responsive and noted longstanding concerns about her interaction with students. The minority opinion of the Board disagreed, finding the process unfair. The university’s Board of Trustees unanimously affirmed the termination.The professor then filed a verified complaint in Rhode Island Superior Court against the university, its Board of Trustees, and several colleagues. She alleged violations of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, as well as state tort and contract claims related to her termination. The university removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island and moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed the federal and state anti-discrimination claims for failure to state a claim, finding insufficient factual allegations connecting protected characteristics to the termination. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims and remanded them to state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The First Circuit held that the professor failed to plead sufficient facts to make her discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims plausible, and found no error in the district court’s consideration of certain documents. View "Crawford v. Salve Regina University" on Justia Law