Monday, April 24, 2017

Cases --- April 16th through 22nd

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Agassounon v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (10th Cir., April 18, 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Agassounon's race, color, national origin, and retaliation claims, because he failed to demonstrate pretext in Jeppesen Sanderson's laying him off)

*Arbogast v. State of Kansas, Dept. of Labor (10th Cir., April 21, 2017) (affirming dismissal of Arbogast's complaint for discrimination and retaliation for lack of personal jurisdiction )

*Crews v. Paine (10th Cir., April 21, 2017) (affirming denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity for Paine, but remanding for further consideration of Eaton’s motion because Crews showed no evidence of discriminatory animus)

*Forbes v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. (10th Cir., April 21, 2017) (even if Kinder violated its own policies, Forbes failed to prove Kinder's firing decision was a pretext)

ERISA and Employee Pension Plans

Coventry Health Care v. Nevils (U.S. Supreme Court, April 18, 2017) ("Because contractual subrogation and reimbursement prescriptionsplainly 'relate to . . . payments with respect to benefits,' ... they override state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement.)

*Zander v. Knight Transportation, Inc. (10th Cir., April 18, 2017) (affirming dismissal of Zander's frivolous pro se action because he refused to appear for deposition and his brief was nearly unintelligible)

Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease

*Anders v. Berryhhill (10th Cir., April 18, 2017) (affirming denial of disability benefits because there was no improper deviation from the Occupational Outlook Handbook)

*Brownrigg v. Berryhill (10th Cir., April 19, 2017) (reversing and remanding denial of benefits:  the ALJ inadequately evaluated Brownrigg's complaint, he did not apply the correct test or sufficiently articulate his reasoning, and his discussion of the medical evidence was too minimal to show freedom from error)


*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Utah Public Employer Alert: Asking about Criminal Convictions on Applications Now Illegal!

Beginning May 9, 2017, it will be illegal for any Utah public employer, including municipalities, counties, special districts, etc., to require a job applicant to disclose a criminal conviction before an initial interview.  This means that public employers cannot ask about criminal convictions on job applications or seek the information before any interview is conducted.  Additionally if no interview is conducted, it is illegal to inquire about the convictions before making a conditional job offer.  

The legislation, HB156S01, includes limited exceptions for (a) situations where another law requires the consideration of a job applicant's criminal conviction history, (b) law enforcement agencies, (c) employers in the criminal or juvenile justice system, (d) non-employee volunteers, (e) employers that work with children or vulnerable adults, (f) the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, (g) the State Tax Commission, or (h) a public employer whose primary purpose is performing financial or fiduciary functions.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

New Utah Legislation Affecting Employers

The following is a summary of legislation passed in the 2017 Utah Legislature that may have some impact on employers.  All House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) become effective on May 9, 2017, except those marked here with an *, which become effective July 1, 2017.  All resolutions become effective the date of passage.


























Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Cases --- March 26th through April 1st


Wages

*Combs v. Jaguar Energy Services, LLC (10th Circuit, March 31, 2017) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Jaguar on Combs's overtime claim because he fell within the Colorado Minimum Wage Order's exemption for "interstate drivers," etc.)


Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease 


JP's Landscaping v. Labor Commission (Utah Ct. App., March 30, 2017) (substantial evidence supported Commission decision on employee injury: no improper advocacy; referral to medical panel was proper. No abuse of discretion in Commission discovery denial)



*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.