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

In this case, the Plaintiff, Barbara M. Parmenter, had subscribed to a long-term care insurance policy offered by her employer, Tufts University, and underwritten by The Prudential Insurance Company of America. The policy was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. After Prudential twice increased Parmenter's premium rate payments for her policy, she sued Tufts and Prudential, alleging each breached their respective fiduciary duties owed to her when Prudential increased those rates. The defendants responded with motions to dismiss for failure to state a plausible claim. The district court granted each of their motions and Parmenter appealed.The United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit found that the language in the policy stating that premium increases would be "subject to the approval of the Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance" was ambiguous, and could not be definitively interpreted based solely on the pleadings and contract documents currently available. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision to dismiss the case against Prudential and remanded it for further proceedings.However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the case against Tufts, as Parmenter's allegations that Tufts failed to prevent the premium rate increases or monitor Prudential did not fall into one of the categories of co-fiduciary liability set forth in section 1105(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. View "Parmenter v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, an African-American male, brought an employment discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Genzyme Therapeutic Products, LP, and one of its executives. The plaintiff alleged racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient proof that the employer's stated rationale for certain adverse employment actions was pretextual. The court also found that the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to demonstrate a causal connection between the alleged protected conduct (filing a complaint against another employee for racial discrimination) and the adverse action (a poor performance review).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employer's proffered reason for the negative performance review was a pretext for discrimination. The court noted that the plaintiff's argument relied heavily on speculation and conjecture rather than definite and competent evidence. The court also highlighted that even if the plaintiff's direct manager thought he was deserving of a higher rating, this did not shed light on the executive's view, nor did it allow a reasonable juror to find that the executive's stated rationale was pretextual. The court concluded that a single racially tinged comment made by the executive was not sufficient to prove discriminatory intent. View "Boykin v. Genzyme Therapeutic Products, LP" on Justia Law

In this case before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, five groups of current and former public employees in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the "Commonwealth") appealed an order by the court overseeing the Commonwealth-wide debt restructuring litigation (the "Title III court") on their motions to secure administrative-expense priority for their back pay claims. The back pay claims arose from allegations that their public employers failed to adjust their wages upward, a violation of Puerto Rico law. The Title III court had previously rejected efforts to assert administrative-expense priority for back pay for work performed before the commencement of the Commonwealth's debt restructuring case under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act ("PROMESA").The appellate court affirmed the Title III court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the pre-petition work claims did not qualify for administrative-expense priority under § 503(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code, which is incorporated into PROMESA, because they were not "wages and benefits awarded pursuant to a judicial proceeding . . . as back pay attributable to any period of time occurring after commencement of the case under this title." The appellate court also held that the Title III court did not abuse its discretion in deferring its decision on administrative-expense status for back pay claims concerning work performed post-petition but for which there has not yet been any judgment in the underlying commonwealth court and agency proceedings. View "Abraham Gimenez Plaintiff Group v. FOMB" on Justia Law

Paulo Trindade, a former employee of Grove Services, Inc., sued his previous employer for breach of contract and violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act, claiming he had been underpaid on his sales commission compensation for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. Following a bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in part for Trindade and in part for Grove, awarding Trindade $330,597 in damages. Both parties appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the lower court's judgment. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's conclusion that Trindade's amended complaint, which included a claim for unpaid wages for 2016, related back to his original complaint, making the claim timely under Massachusetts law. The Court of Appeals also concluded that the district court was correct in its decision to award the damages it did, including an amount for the late payment and underpayment of Trindade's 2016 commission. View "Trindade v. Grove Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Clare Mundell worked as a licensed clinical psychologist for Acadia Hospital in Maine. She discovered that her male colleagues were paid significantly more than her for comparable work. Mundell brought a sex discrimination action against Acadia under federal and state law, specifically the Maine Equal Pay Law ("MEPL"). The district court found Acadia liable under the MEPL and awarded Mundell treble damages. On appeal, Acadia argued that the district court erred in holding that Mundell could prevail without establishing Acadia's discriminatory intent and because Acadia claimed a reasonable-factor-other-than-sex defense to explain the pay difference. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the MEPL does not impose an intent requirement on a plaintiff, nor does it permit a defendant to rely on a catch-all affirmative defense such as market factors to explain pay disparity. The court also concluded that treble damages are available for MEPL violations. View "Mundell v. Acadia Hospital Corp." on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a district court's decision concerning a wage dispute between an employee and his former employer. The employee, Paulo Trindade, claimed that his former employer, Grove Services, Inc., breached their contract and violated the Massachusetts Wage Act by short-changing him on his sales commission compensation. Grove Services challenged the timeliness of Trindade's Wage Act claim relating to the 2016 commission, but the court agreed with the district court that the claim related back to his original complaint, making it timely. The First Circuit also upheld the district court's damages award. Trindade was awarded $330,597 in damages, which included compensation for late and unpaid wages for the 2016 commission, subject to mandatory trebling under the Wage Act, and damages for the 2014 breach of contract. View "Trindade v. Grove Services, Inc." on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, a collective of long-haul truck drivers, led by Juan Carlos Montoya, contended that their employer, CRST Expedited and CRST International (collectively referred to as "CRST"), violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not compensating them for time spent in a truck's sleeper berth exceeding eight hours within a 24-hour period. CRST operates a "team driving model" where two drivers alternate between driving and resting in the sleeper berth of the truck, allowing the vehicle to be in near-continuous motion. The drivers argued that the time spent in the sleeper berth was "on duty" time, as defined by Department of Labor regulations, and thus should be compensated as work. The district court granted summary judgment for the drivers, determining that such time was indeed compensable work. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the time drivers spend in the sleeper berth that exceeds eight hours per day is compensable work under the FLSA. The Court reasoned that the drivers' confinement to the sleeper berth, the importance of continuous travel to CRST's business model, and the potential burdens placed on the drivers suggest that the time predominantly benefits the employer. Furthermore, the Court interpreted the Department of Labor regulations to allow an employer to exclude a sleeping period of no more than eight hours from hours worked in a 24-hour period. View "Montoya v. CRST Expedited, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in this lawsuit alleging disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and other claims, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Plaintiff filed this action claiming disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (RA), hostile work environment under the RA and Americans with Disabilities Act, retaliation in violation of Title VII, and failure to accommodate under the RA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the VA on all counts. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded that 5 U.S.C. 8461(d) did not bar its review of Plaintiff's claims at summary judgment; (2) did not err in rejecting Plaintiff's preclusion claim; and (3) did not err in granting summary judgment. View "Dixon-Tribou v. McDonough" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff's claims for disability discrimination, in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Mass Gen. Laws ch. 151B, and for age discrimination, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, holding that there was no error.The district court (1) concluded that Plaintiff had failed to carry her burden to make out a prima facie case that she was a "qualified individual" under the ADA and thus also failed to do so under chapter 151B; and (2) concluded that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant's proffered reason for her termination was pretextual. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's ADA and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B disability discrimination claims; and (2) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff's claim of age discrimination under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B. View "Der Sarkisian v. Austin Preparatory School" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court concluding that the City of Malden had violated the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148 (the Wage Act) and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 44, 53C (the Municipal Finance Law), holding that there was no violation of the Wage Act or Municipal Finance Law in this case.Plaintiffs, City of Malden police officers, sued the City, arguing that a term in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that set the hourly rate for police detail work aligned with how they were historically paid and that a ten percent deduction for an administrative fee resulted in a reduction in their wages as set forth in the CBA, in violation of the Wage Act. The district court ruled that the contract term was ambiguous and, after hearing witness testimony, ruled that the City violated the Municipal Finance Law and the Wage Act. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) the contract term was unambiguous in favor of the City; (2) any reduction in the calculated rate still resulted in a higher payout than contemplated in the CBA, and therefore, there was no Wage Act violation; and (3) the district court clearly erred in finding that the City had violated the Municipal Finance Law. View "Owens v. City of Malden" on Justia Law