Appellate Law & Practice

CA1: affirmance for failure to follow local rules on summary judgment

Sanchez-Figueroa v. Banco Popular, No. 07-1013.  This appeal of an ADA case seems to really be affirming summary judgment for failure to comply with Puerto Rico’s Local Rule 10(b) (translation of exhibits from Spanish to English); and having a counter-statement of facts that wasn’t concise. 

The First seems says it isn’t opinion on the underlying issue, but the plaintiff seems to have suffered some kind of mental breakdown due to some interaction at the office. 

However, based on whatever record does make it to summary judgment, the First says that the condition appeared temporary.

CA1: arbitration award affirmed

UMass Memorial v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Nos. 07-2527; 07-2528.  The hospital lost an arbitration (against the union).  The hospital went to the District Court, seeking to vacate the award.  This seems to be a dispute about whether the statute of limitations was followed because of a dispute about whether incidents were “episodic” or “continuous.”  The District Court noted that the arbitrator’s decision could be construed two ways.  But, the First says that it is the “result” not the “reasoning” that is what the District Court should be analyzing.  An award of fees in favor of the union is affirmed. 

CA1: race discrimination case affirmed

Holloway v. Thompson Island, No. 07-2207 affirms a grant of summary judgment in a race discrimination case because the defendants came up with a non-discriminatory motive.  The issue was somewhat complicated by the fact that he had a previous settlement that called for arbitration of disputes arising from that settlement.

CA1: whistleblower case goes nowhere

Lupu v. El Conquistador, No. 07-1659 is a diversity action under Puerto Rico’s whistleblower statute.  On the facts, it seems that the employer had a good enough reason to get rid of him from his probationary job.  The First is able to avoid a lot issues based on the summary judgment record.

CA1: deputies sue sheriff under 1983 and win

Davignon v. Hodgson, No. 06-1191.  This is a 1983 action – by union corrections officers claiming that the First Amendment rights were violated – against the sheriff.  At trial, the officers won a small victory.  The sheriff appealed. 

The most interesting issue if how the First deals with an inconsistent verdict claim, as the 1983 verdict seems to have conflicted with the state law claims.  The First analyzes it and says that yes, the jury could find such a “strained” set of facts.

Strangely, the sheriff seems to have overdone the rhetoric against his officers by referring to Supreme Court cases.  But the First explains that most union speech actually is protected under the First Amendment and is, in fact, a matter of public concern.  (The First rejects the invitation to summarily accept this, and instead goes on a very long analysis concluding the same thing.)  Then it engages in a balancing of the interests at stake, and affirms the jury’s verdict.  Likewise, the First there was a “causation” case made out – in that the deputies discipline was caused by the protected activities.  Pretty much the same result is reached with regard to the “freedom of assocation” claim.

Evidentiary claims about admission of an administrative decision (used to show identity), and a reopening to present evidence of lost wages are affirmed. 

Finally, the First rejects some really strongly pro-defendant jury instructions, i.e. “Judicial review of prison officials' actions is very limited.”

CA1: arbitration confirmed

Ramos-Santiago v. United Parcel Service, No. 07-1024.  This is an arbitration appeal of a UPS driver that didn’t deliver some packages.  You know where this is going.  He claims that the arbitration award can’t be enforced, because the arbitrator pointed to the wrong provision of the collective bargaining agreement, but the First says that the arbitrator got it right.  The First also affirms an award of costs to UPS.  Decisionism comments here.

CA1: Industrial Double Jeopardy only applies to final punishments

Zayas et al v. Bacardi Corporation,  No. 07-1950 (4/18/08).  An employee raised a “double jeopardy” argument in an arbitration – essentially arguing that he had been dismissed after already being punished.  The arbitrator freaked out and didn’t address it.  So, by the time it gets to the First, unlike most arbitration fights, review of the concept is not that deferential.  After concluding that there really isn’t any Court of Appeals precedent, and that this is real “constitutional double jeopardy” Selya holds (citing treatises) that “a second sanction only transgresses industrial double jeopardy principles if the first sanction has become final.”  In this case, the employee had been suspended while the employer investigated things.  Even though the arbitrator found that that suspension was not with just cause, Selya says that was a separate claim which failed because the employer didn’t meet his burden.

Finally, Selya says that just because the arbitrator didn’t explain his rationale, no remand is necessary, because on de novo review, the First could affirm on a rationale that isn’t stated by the arbitrator.

CA1: Puerto Rican political discrimination claim fails

Morales-Tanon v. PR Electric Power Authority, No. 07-1774 affirms a dismissal in a Puerto Rican political discrimination case. There were two issues: when the statutes of limitations began to run (i.e. when a shift in office-holders became clear); and whether opening a failure to open a search is cognizable.  The First says that it isn’t.

I sort of like this line “Morales-Tañon, an attorney, has held a career position as a member of PREPA's Auction Committee since 1997. The complaint gives no information about what the Auction Committee does.”

CA1: Gillette’s alleged shaving in ERISA plan upheld

Livick v. Gillette Company, No. 07-2108.  Okay, another ERISA case.  After a grant of summary judgment to Gillette and its retirement plan.  There was a “miscalculation” of the plaintiff’s benefits by a “human resources representative” and various websites based on an incorrect assumption that years he put in for Parker Pen (a company that was later bought by Gillette) would count.  However, the websites had disclaimers saying that the “terms” of the plan would prevail.  He eventually made some decisions based on erroneous figures. 

Good News!  You can read more below the fold! 

CA1: no discriminatory animus at Coke

Thompson v. Coca-Cola Company, No. 07-2107.  A guy went to Jamaica to have dental work done.  When he got back her was fired for not finding someone to cover his shifts.  There seems to be some discrimination going on at Coke.  The First says that all the racist comments were made by non-decision-makers, so the only things that matter are whether the “Separation Review Committee acted with discriminatory animus.”    It also says that “Stray workplace remarks” don’t meet any burden of showing pretext or animus.  And, under state law, there wasn’t really a pervasively abusive environment.

The First seems to be using more boiler-plate than usual to explain the standard of review in summary judgment cases.  What gives?