Garcetti v. Ceballos: Private Citizen Speech, Public Employment, and the First Amendment

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior decisions that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects government employees from retaliation for speaking out as private citizens on matters of public concern. But when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as private citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not protect their communications from employer discipline.

Facts

Ceballos was a supervising deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, also known as a “calendar deputy.” A defense attorney asked Ceballos to review a case in which, the defense attorney claimed, police obtained a search warrant using an inaccurate affidavit. After examining the affidavit and visiting the location it described, Ceballos determined the affidavit contained serious misrepresentations.

After relaying his findings to his supervisors at the District Attorney’s Office, Ceballos followed up with a disposition memorandum recommending that the case be dismissed. The District Attorney’s Office nevertheless moved forward with prosecuting the case.

At a court hearing on the defendant’s motion to challenge the search warrant, Ceballos repeated his observations about the inaccurate affidavit. The trial court rejected the challenge.

Ceballos claimed that in the aftermath of these events, he was subjected to a series of retaliatory employment actions. These actions included reassignment from his calendar deputy position to a trial deputy position, transfer to another courthouse, and denial of a promotion.

Claiming that his supervisors at the District Attorney’s Office retaliated against him for his memorandum, in violation of his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment free speech rights, Ceballos filed suit. The District Court granted summary judgment against Ceballos, ruling, among other things, that the memo was not protected speech because Ceballos wrote it pursuant to his employment duties. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the memo’s allegations were protected under the First Amendment analysis in Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). The District Attorney’s Office appealed. Garcetti at 413-417.

The Court’s Decision

The Garcetti Court held that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and therefore the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. The Court then determined that Ceballos did not speak as a citizen when he wrote his memo and, therefore, his speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

Read more about the case at TimCoffieldAttorney.com.

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.

Comcast v. NAAAM: Law of Causation in 1981 Claims

In Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, No. 18-1171, __ U.S. __ (March 23, 2020), the Supreme Court held that race-discrimination claims brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1886, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, are subject to a but-for standard of causation.

Background

The Civil Rights Act of 1886, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1981, provides that “[a]ll persons … shall have the same right … to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens[.]” The law has been interpreted as, inter alia, prohibiting discrimination because of race in employment and other kinds of contractual relationships.

A similar discrimination law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, specifically provides for a “motivating factor” causation standard — that is, an employee can prevail on a Title VII race discrimination claim by proving that her race was a “motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated that practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m).

The statutory language of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, however, does not specify the causation standard for proving race discrimination under § 1981.

The causation standard under § 1981 is important for employees because this law is, in some ways, more powerful than Title VII. For example, while Title VII race discrimination claims are subject to caps on compensatory and punitive damages, see 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, race discrimination claims under § 1981 are not subject to damages caps.

Read about this case’s facts at TimCoffieldAttorney.com.

Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo: Representative Proof in Wage Classes

In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.Ct. 1036 (2016), the Supreme Court held that representative proof from a sample, based on an expert witness’s estimation of average time that employees spent donning and doffing protective gear, could be used to show predominance of common questions of law or fact for purposes of class certification. The Court also reaffirmed the long-held FLSA principle that where an employer fails to keep accurate time records, an employee can meet her burden by providing evidence showing hours worked as a matter of just and reasonable inference.

Facts

The plaintiffs worked for Tyson Foods. These employees worked in the kill, cut, and retrim departments of a Tyson’s pork processing plant in Iowa. Their work required them to wear protective gear, but the exact composition of the gear depended on the tasks a worker performed on a given day. Tyson compensated some, but not all, employees for this donning and doffing, and did not record the time each employee spent on those activities.

The employees filed suit, alleging that the donning and doffing were integral and indispensable to their hazardous work and that Tyson’s policy not to pay for those activities denied them overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). They also raised a claim under an Iowa state wage law.

Learn more about this case at TimCoffieldAttorney.com.

Bostock v. Clayton County: Title VII Protections for LGBTQ Employees

In the landmark Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17–1618, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), the Supreme Court held that an employer who fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Facts

In each of three consolidated cases, an employer fired an employee at least in part for being

homosexual or transgender. Clayton County, Georgia, fired Gerald Bostock for conduct “unbecoming” a county employee when began playing a gay recreational softball league. Altitude Express fired Donald Zarda days after he mentioned being gay. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes fired Aimee Stephens, who presented as a male when she was hired, after she informed the company that she planned to “live and work full-time as a woman.”

Each employee sued, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The employees’ cases shared a common theory: that Title VII’s prohibition of workplace discrimination “because of sex” prohibited discrimination because an employee is homosexual or transgender. Their respective Circuit Courts reached conflicting conclusions. The Eleventh Circuit allowed the dismissal of Bostock’s suit, holding that Title VII does not prohibit employers from firing employees for being gay. The Second and Sixth Circuits, however, allowed Zarda’s and Stephens’ sex discrimination claims, respectively, to proceed under Title VII.

Read about the court’s decision at TimCoffieldAttorney.com.

Steiner v. Mitchell: Integral and Indispensable Equals Compensable

In the oldie-but-goldie decision of Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956), the Supreme Court held that time workers spend on activities performed before or after regular working hours is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, if the activities are “integral and indispensable parts of the principal activity” of the worker’s employment. This holding, and the reasoning behind it, is an important principle of “donning and doffing,” equipment preparation, security screening, and similar cases, where workers seek compensation for time spent performing work-related activities off the clock or outside of regular work hours.

Facts

Steiner operated a car-battery manufacturing plant. The plant’s production employees worked with some toxic chemicals. These included lead and sulphuric acid. In the manufacturing process, some of the materials gave off dangerous fumes. Some were inevitably spilled or dropped, becoming a part of the dust in the air. In general, the chemicals permeated the entire plant and everything and everyone in it. Id. at 249-50.

In an effort to make the plant safer and thereby increase the efficiency of its operation, Steiner equipped it with shower facilities and a locker room with separate lockers for work and street clothing. Also, Steiner furnished work clothes for the employees to wear. The cost of providing their own work clothing would be prohibitive for the employees, since the acid caused such rapid deterioration that the clothes sometimes lasted only a few days. The employees regularly changed into work clothes before the beginning of the productive work period, and showered and changed back at the end of that period. In addition, the company required the employees to take afternoon baths to minimize the amount of lead oxide absorbed into their blood. These measures were thought to protect the company and the employees. Id. at 250-52.

Steiner did not pay the employees for the time they spent in these activities, which together amounted to about 30 minutes per day. Steiner conceded that the employees’ clothes-changing and showering activities were indispensable to and integrally related to the performance of their productive work. Steiner, however, contended that these activities fell outside the concept of a “‘principal activity’ and that, being performed off the production line and before or after regular shift hours, the time employees spent doing them was not compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Id. at 250-52.

Read the full analysis at TimCoffieldAttorney.com

Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk: Rule 68 and Collective Actions

In Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (2013), the Supreme Court held that a putative Fair Labor Standards Act collective action brought by one employee on behalf of others was no longer justiciable when, as conceded by the employee, her individual claim became moot before others joined the case.

Facts

Symzcyk worked for Genesis Healthcare as a registered nurse. In 2009, Symczyk brought a putative collective action under the FLSA on behalf of herself and “other employees similarly situated.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). She alleged Genesis violated the FLSA by automatically deducting 30 minutes of time worked per shift for meal breaks for certain employees, even when the employees performed compensable work during those breaks. Symcyzk, who remained the sole plaintiff throughout the case, sought statutory damages for the alleged violations.

After Symczyk filed suit, but before any other employees joined the suit, the employer sent Symczyk an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, which Symczyk ignored. The offer had proposed to pay all of her statutory damages, plus costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. The District Court, finding that no one else had joined the case, and that the Rule 68 offer fully satisfied Symczyk’s claim, concluded that Symczyk’s suit was moot. The court therefore dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Third Circuit reversed, holding that while Symczyk’s individual claim was moot, the collective action on behalf of other similar employees was not. The Third Circuit reasoned that allowing employers to use calculated Rule 68 offers to “pick off” named plaintiff-employees before certification would frustrate the goals of collective actions. The court therefore remanded the case to the trial court, with instructions to allow Symczyk to seek conditional certification of the collective action and move forward with the case on behalf of other employees who might join. See 569 U.S. at 69-71.

Read the full blog at TimCoffieldAttorney.com.

Babb v. Wilkie: Causation in Federal Sector Age Discrimination

In Babb v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veteran Affairs, No. 18-882, ___ U.S. ___ (Apr. 6, 2020), the Supreme Court held that the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a), demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age. This means that a federal sector employee can prevail on an age discrimination claim without proving but-for causation. However, the presence or absence of but-for causation is important in determining the available remedies.

Facts

Babb was a federal employee, a pharmacist, at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (the “VA”). Babb sued the VA for, inter alia, age discrimination in various adverse personnel actions. The VA offered various alleged nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions. The District Court granted the VA’s summary judgment motion after finding Babb had established a prima facie case, that the VA had proffered legitimate reasons for the challenged actions, and that no jury could reasonably conclude that those reasons were pretextual.

Babb appealed. She argued the District Court’s requirement that age be a but-for cause of a personnel action was inappropriate under the ADEA’s federal-sector provision. Because that section requires most federal-sector “personnel actions” affecting individuals aged 40 and older be made “free from any discrimination based on age,” Babb argued such a personnel action is unlawful if age is a factor in the challenged decision — even if many other factors having nothing to do with age were also factors. Under Babb’s reading of the ADEA, therefore, even if the VA’s proffered reasons in her case were not pretextual, the VA still violated the ADEA if age discrimination played any part at all in the decision. The Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument, citing binding circuit precedent, and Babb appealed again.

Learn the court’s decision and more about this SCOTUS case at CoffieldLaw.com!

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (SCOTUS, April 2, 2018)

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (SCt. Case No. 16-1362) (Encino II) held that service advisors at car dealerships are exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requiring employers to pay overtime to employees who work more than forty hours in a week. Enacted in 1938, the FLSA is the United States labor law that created the employee right to minimum wage, and overtime pay (generally, one and a half times the employee’s regular hourly rate) for employees who work over forty hours a week. The FLSA, however, contains numerous exemptions — categories of employees who are not entitled to receive overtime pay under the FLSA based on their job duties. These employees are referred to as “exempt” from the right to receive overtime pay.

One such provision, codified at 29 U.S.C. §213(b)(10)(A), provides an exemption to the overtime-pay requirement for “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements.” The plaintiff employee Navarro in Encino Motorcars worked for a car dealership as a service advisor. Navarro sued the dealership on behalf of himself and other service advisors, arguing that the dealership violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime wages. The primary question for the Supreme Court was whether the FLSA entitled service advisors to overtime pay, or whether the job of service advisor fell into the exemption for “salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles[.]”

At the trial court level, the district court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that service advisors were exempt and therefore were not entitled to overtime pay. The employees appealed that decision, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court, finding that the exemption for “salesman … primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles” did not apply to service advisors at car dealerships. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that the service advisors were exempt and therefore not entitled to overtime pay. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion. Justice Ginsberg wrote the dissent.

The Court first determined that a service advisor is a “salesman” for the purposes of the exemption at issue, because the ordinary meaning of “salesman” is someone who sells goods or services, and service advisors “sell [customers] services for their vehicles[.]” Encino II at 6 (cite to earlier decision omitted).

Next, the Court held that service advisors are also “primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles.” Thomas’ reasoning here was that “servicing” can mean either “the action of maintaining or repairing a motor vehicle” or “[t]he action of providing a service,” and service advisors satisfy both definitions because they are integral to the servicing process. Encino II at 6-7. Service advisors meet customers and listen to their concerns about their cars; suggest repair and maintenance services; sell new or replacement parts; record service orders; follow up with customers as the services are performed; and explain the repair and maintenance work being performed. Encino II at 6-7 (quotes omitted). Therefore, service advisors are primarily engaged in servicing automobiles.

In reaching this conclusion, Thomas rejected the Ninth Circuit’s approach to interpreting the word “or” in the language of the exemption (“any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles”). The Ninth Circuit had applied the distributive method — matching “salesman” with “selling” and “partsman [and] mechanic” with “servicing”— and therefore determined that the exemption does not apply to “salesm[e]n . . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles.” The Supreme Court disagreed with that approach, observing that the word “or,” is “almost always disjunctive” — meaning, in this context of this language, that “salesman” could be matched with “servicing.” Encino II at 7-9 (citing United States v. Woods, 571 U. S. 31, 45.) The Court also pointed out that the distributive use of “or” worked best when one-to-one matching was possible and did not make as much sense when trying to pair three terms (“salesman, partsman, or mechanic”) with two terms (“selling” or “servicing”). Therefore, the Court applied the disjunctive meaning of “or.” By using “or” to join “selling” and “servicing”, Thomas determined that the exemption covers a salesman primarily engaged in either selling or servicing. This included service advisors, which the Court had concluded were salesmen primarily engaged in servicing automobiles. Encino II at 7-9.

Thomas also discussed the Ninth Circuit’s application of the long-standing principle in FLSA jurisprudence that exemptions should be narrowly construed. Thomas rejected that approach, reasoning that because the FLSA “gives no textual indication that its exemptions should be construed narrowly, there is no reason to give them anything other than a fair (rather than a ‘narrow’) interpretation.” Encino II at 9 (citing and quoting Scalia, Reading Law, at 363.)

In sum, this case determined that service advisors at auto dealerships are exempt from the overtime-pay requirement, and departed from the Court’s long-standing principle that FLSA exemptions should be construed narrowly.

This article was also published to TimCoffieldAttorney.com and CoffieldLaw.com.

Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (SCOTUS, May 21, 2018)

Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (SCt. Case No. 16-285) highlights the tension between a pair of federal laws, The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), concerning whether an employment contract can legally bar employees from engaging in collective action to enforce their rights in court. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) was enacted in 1925 to allow parties to contractually agree to resolve disputes through arbitration, rather than through the judicial system. The following decade Congress enacted The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (“NLRA”), which protects the rights of employees to, among other things, engage in collective action to protect their legal rights. Employees protected under the NLRA are able to join together and take collective action to counter unfair employment practices and improve their working conditions and wages.

In Epic Systems, the employer distributed via email a new policy requiring employees to sign an arbitration agreement. The agreement, in short, stated that employees bringing claims for alleged violations of wage-and-hour or other laws could only do so through individual arbitration. This agreement further included a provision designed to waive the employees’ “rights to participate in any class, collective, or representative proceeding.” The agreement was to be recognized and signed by its employees, including Lewis, a tech writer for the company. Lewis did acknowledge and sign the agreement.

The following year, in February of 2015, Lewis filed a suit against Epic Systems. The suit was filed as a purported collective action, involving other tech writers employed at Epic Systems. The collective action alleged Epic Systems failed to follow The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, in addition to a Wisconsin law related to employees’ rights to receive overtime pay. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Epic Systems moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the arbitration agreement signed by Lewis prevented him from bringing or participating in collective actions, and required him to address any claims through individual arbitration. The District Court denied Epic Systems’ motion, finding Lewis’ action was protected under section 7 of the NLRA, and stating that the 2014 arbitration agreement and collective action waiver violated those terms.

Epic Systems appealed the District Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing the District Court erred by finding that the FAA did not control and that the collective action waiver was not valid. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court, however, finding that Epic Systems’ collective action waiver violated the terms of the NLRA. Epic Systems petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, following a split of authority among the circuit courts of appeal relating to the tension between respective provisions of the NLRA and FAA. In January 2017, the Supreme Court consolidated Epic Systems with two other similar cases and agreed to hear the oral arguments of all three cases.

On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision ruling that individual arbitration agreements and collective action waivers are enforceable under the FAA, and that neither the NLRA or the FAA’s savings clause requires a different conclusion.

This article was originally published to TimCoffieldAttorney.com and CoffieldLaw.com.

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.

Falk v. Brennan: Law of Employment and Control

In Falk v. Brennan, 414 U.S. 190 (1973), the Supreme Court held that an entity is an “employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act when it exercises substantial control over the terms and conditions of the work of the employees at issue.

Background

The Fair Labor Standards Act generally requires a covered “employer” to pay its covered nonexempt employees minimum wages for each hour worked and overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) & 207(a). The FLSA defines “employer” as “includ[ing] any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). With some exceptions, the FLSA generally defines “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). The FLSA defines “employ” as including “to suffer or permit to work.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(g).

The FLSA also provides that for an employer to be covered under the Act’s dollar-volume “enterprise” coverage provision, the employer must receive “annual gross volume of sales made or business done [] not less than $500,000[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(ii).

Facts

D&F operated a property management company in Virginia. It rendered management services for the owners of several apartment complexes. Under its contracts with the apartment owners, D&F agreed to perform, on behalf of each owner and under his “nominal” supervision, “virtually all management functions that are ordinarily required for the proper functioning of an apartment complex.” 414 U.S. at 192. Those functions included advertising the apartments; signing, renewing, and canceling leases; collecting rents; instituting and settling all legal proceedings for eviction, possession of the premises, and unpaid rent; making necessary repairs and alterations; negotiating contracts for essential utilities and other services; purchasing supplies; paying bills; preparing operating budgets for the property owners’ review and approval; submitting periodic reports to the owners; and “hiring and supervising all employees required for the operation and maintenance of the buildings and grounds.” Id. at n4.

As compensation, D&F received a fixed percentage of the gross rents collected from each project. D&F deposited the rents it collected in local bank accounts. From these accounts it paid all expenses incurred in operating and maintaining the buildings. After deducting its compensation, as well as other expenses, D&F periodically transmitted payments to the various apartment owners. If disbursements for any apartment complex exceeded the gross rental receipts, the owner was required to reimburse D&F. 414 U.S. at 192-93. D&F collected about $8 million dollars per year in rents for all the buildings it managed. Id. at n6. However, its gross commissions received on those rentals were less than $500,000 per year. Id. at n10.

The Secretary of Labor filed suit against D&F on behalf of the maintenance workers, alleging that D&F violated the minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping requirements of the FLSA with respect to those workers. Id. Significantly, these employees worked under the supervision of D&F and were paid from the rents received at the apartment complexes where they worked. Under the contracts between the apartment owners and D&F, the maintenance workers were considered to be “employees of the project owners.” Id.

A central question for the Court was whether the maintenance workers were also employees of D&F, such that D&F was responsible for complying with the FLSA’s minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping requirements with respect to those workers.

A secondary question was which figure should be considered in determining whether D&F met the $500,000 threshold for enterprise coverage: D&F’s gross rentals collected ($8M annually), or D&F’s gross commissions on those rentals (less than $500,000).

To read the full article, visit CoffieldLaw.com or TimCoffieldAttorney.com.