Cases Flashcards
Secretary of Labor v. Lauritzen
Pickle pickers. Migrant workers who harvest the pickle crop are employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), or are instead independent contractors.
i. Wolf v. Coca Cola
: Benefits plan excludes “leased employees.” A leased employee sued because she met the common law definition of employee. Court said she could be excluded because the plan specifically excluded that class of worker.
ii. Vizcainzo v. Microsoft
There was no exclusion language, so a “freelance employee” who met the common law definition was able to get benefits.
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel:
Joint Employees:
Working for subcontractors of a larger company. Found they could get benefits from Liberty because they were essentially working for LIberty
i. Chiodo v. General Waterworks
Definite Term contract:
Sold telecom company with a condition he be employed for 10 years.
Contract did not contain a “just cause” provision so he couldn’t be fired for reasons stated.
i. Hetes v. Schefman
Indefinite Term Contract:
Employee alleged that despite a pre-hiring promise that she wouldn’t be fired “as long as she did a good job” and then was fired. Court found that this promise could be enough to create a just-cause” or indefinite term contract.
i. Ohanian v. Avis
Oral contracts/Statute of Frauds
told job was secure “unless he screwed up badly” when he took over the troubled northeastern division. Fired for economic reasons. Ohanian was found to have been offered “lifetime employment” by Avis. While this superficially appears to be a contract that cannot be performed in only one year, there are several scenarios under which such a contract could be performed
- Grouse v. Group Health Plan
Reliance:
Grouse was offered a job by Group Health. HE quit his job to accept it and turned down in the interterm. No job when he showed up on day one. Court found Group Health should have at least given him the opportunity to perform
- Veno v. Meredith
Moved his family from Newark to Philly for a job. Turned down numerous job offers while employed in philly for 8 years. Fired for publishing an article criticizing a judge, and argued that among other reasons gave him a just-cause protection. Court said no because relocation is something all employees do and that it happened eight years ago.
ii. Pugh v. See’s candy
Started as dishwasher as an at-will employee. Pugh relied on “duration of his employment, commendations and promotions he received, lack of direct criticism, the assurances of job security he was given, and the employers acknowledged practice of not terminating except for good cause,” to become an indefinite term employee.
iii. Wooley v. Hoffman-La Roche:
Employment manual:
the manual laid out five ways an employee can be terminated (all amounted to just cause) and the preamble contained language they would retain efficient and effective employees. Create a “just cause” contract
iv. Demasse v. ITT Corp
Employment manual amendments:
amendment changed the Last First out policy
i. Peterman v. Teamsters Local 396
Public Policy: wouldn’t perjure himself in front of state legislature
i. Franklin v. swift
Public Policy: Refusing to drive without proper licenscing paperwork does not meet standard
a. Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Company
Public Policy: exercising right to workmans comp
a. Nees v. Hocks
public policy: fired for participating in jury duty
a. Palmateer v. international harvester
Public policy, whistle blowing: faulty kidney machines
b. Wright v. Schrieners:
Public policy, whistle blowing:
Nurse reporting on internal fights of hospital. Internal whistleblowing does not receive as much protection as external.
c. Johnston v. Del Mar
Public policy, whistle blowing:
fired for checking in with ATF on shipping guns as “fishing gear”. Employees are protected on checking if something is illegal as long as they have a good-faith, reasonable belief.
i. Rulon Miller v. IBM
Invasion of privacy (off the job):
woman was an employee of IBM. Had a relaitionship with someone who moved to another company and was fired as a result. IBM had issued the “Watson memo” which said they wouldn’t interfere with workers’ lives.
ii. Bruner v. Al Attar
Invasion of privacy (off the job):
fired for volunteering to help AIDs victims. No common law claim.
i. K-Mart v. Trotti
Invasion of Privacy (on the job): Employee furnished own lock for locker and was not required to give employee a copy of the key or combination. This raised the level of reasonable expectation of privacy.
ii. Pure Power Boot Camp
INvasion of Privacy (statute): accessed emails of employees starting their own company. (ECPA)
c. Simms v. NCI Holding Corp
INvasion of PRivacy (drug testing):
If private employers have a preexisting written policy on drug testing, they must substantially comply with that policy.
i. Thatcher v. Brennan
negligent hiring/respondeat superior: Medical supply guy beats up someone while out on the road for a job. Court dismissed “respondeat superior” claim because he was not acting in scope of employment. Dismissed negligent hiring claim, because even though personality test showed aggressive traits, he had worked there long enough without incident the employer could not have aniticipated such an incident.”
d. Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp
Invasion of privacy: (Honesty testing): target security guards, asked questions about sexuality and religion. While target can give an honesty, that test cannot invade the applicants privacy.
Defamation
Elbeshbeshy
Defamation (defamatory statement): made up a reason for firing as showing lack of cooperation.
- Zinda v Louisiana Pacific Corp:
Defamation (publication): LA has privilege to publish reason for termination of Zinda to employees but not to the general public. Can’t be excessive publication.
a. Sigal Construction v. Stanbury
Defamation (employee references): Gave less than glowing review despite never having supervised, or directly worked with employee. Based his words on rumors and his “general sense.”
Would have been OK if he was clear about the source of information, instead of representing it as fact.
a. Jet Courier Services v. Mulei
Duty of Loyalty: employee started his own competing business.
i. Rule 1. Cannot engage in active competition with your employee while still employed.
ii. Rule 2. Balancing test on soliciting coworkers to join your company. Consider (1) type of employment (contract, at will, etc), (2) impact of the employees departure on current employer, and (3) extent of any benefits promised to co-workers to obtain their services for the new competing business.
b. Dicks v Jensen
Trade Secrets: it was claimed the use of mass mailing lists from a former employer by former employees in a new competing company violated trade secrets. The court sided with the plaintiffs, citing that the customer list did not qualify for trade secret protection because there was no evidence that the employer took any steps to maintain secrecy
- Francklyn v. Guilford Packing
Employee inventions: invented a better clammer with customer resources. Rule: shop right holder is not free to assign his right to another person because it is a limited personal right that can be utilized only by the employer.
ii. Ingersoll-Rand v. Ciavatta
Employee inventions: after being terminated, former employee invented a coal mining stabilizer that competed with Rand’s. Had a hold over clause for inventions. Court found that it was too unreasonable to be enforced.
ii. Rem Metals v Logan:
NonCompete Clause: Welder signed noncomplete clause but then went and worked for a competitor. Court found the clause unenforceable because the skills learned by Logan could have been learned anywhere… not just REM. Takeaway- general knowledge or skill acquired trough training and experience at a given employer is the employee’s to exploit.
iii. Karpinski v. Ingrasci
NonCompete Clause:
Oral surgeon in NY, noncompete clause with no duration. OK because it was limited to a five county area (reasonable)
i. BDO Seidman v. Hirschberg
Noncompete clause: Example of blue penciling. Accountant had signed 18month non-comete clause. Court said that was unreasomnable on its face because accounting is accounting, but the company could have had a legitimate interest in customer retention.
