The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently vacated a trial court's injunction granted to enforce various noncompete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions in a mortgage lender's employment agreement with a loan officer.
Posts published in “Employment Law”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that various federal Fair Credit Reporting Act claims should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a trial court erred in its amount in controversy analysis in determining jurisdiction under the federal Class Action Fairness Act.
In a “hybrid wage-and-hour” action brought by mortgage loan officers (MLOs), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently: 1) reiterated its prior holding that “an FLSA opt-in collective action is not, by its nature, incompatible with a parallel state law Rule 23 opt-out class action”, and 2) held that the trial court should not have required a trial in the FLSA opt-in collective action before deciding Rule 23 class certification on the parallel state-law claims.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed and remanded a trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, recently denied a petition for writ of mandate on the merits, concluding that California Labor Code section 229 did not exempt the plaintiff loan processor's wage claim from arbitration.
The State of Florida, like many states, maintains a robust workers’ compensation statute geared toward insulating employees injured on the job from associated medical services. Now, lawsuits continue to be filed against debt collectors, hospitals and other medical providers alleging that under a novel interpretation of Florida’s workers’ compensation law, it is unlawful to attempt to collect medical debt arising from work-related injuries directly from consumers.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently dismissed as moot an employee’s appeal of a trial court’s ruling denying class certification after he reached an individual settlement with his employer as to his claims for workplace meal break violations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order compelling the arbitration of an employee’s federal age discrimination claim against a financial institution employer, holding that the trial court correctly found that there was a meeting of the minds between the employee and the employer as required to form the arbitration agreement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently vacated an order sua sponte remanding to state court a putative class action removed under the federal Class Action Fairness Act. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held: When a notice of removal plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, a federal trial court may not remand the case back to state court without giving the defendants an opportunity to demonstrate that the jurisdictional requirements were satisfied; The amount in controversy may be based on reasonable assumptions tied to the allegations in the complaint; When a statute or contract…
The Court of Appeal for the Second District of California affirmed an order denying class certification in a wage and hour litigation, holding that the plaintiffs’ proposed anonymous, double-blind survey and statistical sampling failed to address individualized issues for liability and damages. In so ruling, the Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs’ trial plan was unmanageable and unfair because, among other things, the proposed survey deprived the defendants of the ability to cross-examine the witnesses and to assert defenses. A copy of the opinion in McCleery v. Allstate Insurance Company is available at: Link to Opinion. In this putative class…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration over a suit filed by a former employee alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In so doing, the Court held that the former employee’s mere review of the employee handbook, and the arbitration and delegation provisions therein, did not constitute acceptance of the relevant clauses, and without acceptance no valid contracts to arbitrate their disputes or delegate the decision to an arbitrator were formed. A copy of the opinion in Shockley v. PrimeLending is available at: …