Select Recent Employment Decisions - Fourth Circuit and U.S. District Courts in Virginia
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
NLRB v. B. A. Mullican Lumber & Mfg. Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15871 (4th Cir. 2008)
After production employees of B.A. Mullican Lumber and Manufacturing Company ("Mullican Lumber") filed a petition with the National Labor Relations [*2] Board ("NLRB" or the "Board") to decertify representation by the United Mine Workers of America (the "Union"), Mullican Lumber received information from the employees that the decertification petition revealed that a majority of the employees no longer supported the Union. Based on this information, Mullican Lumber withdrew recognition of the Union. On the Union's subsequent unfair labor practice charges, the General Counsel of the Board filed a complaint against Mullican Lumber, alleging that the evidence Mullican Lumber relied on to withdraw recognition of the Union was insufficient. Even though neither the Union nor the General Counsel of the Board challenged Mullican Lumber's evidence at the hearing before the administrative law judge, nor ever denied that a majority of the employees signed the petition to decertify the Union, the Board agreed with the General Counsel and held that Mullican Lumber violated § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act in withdrawing recognition of the Union. Accordingly, the Board ordered that Mullican Lumber recognize the Union and bargain with it as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its production employees.
On the Board's [*3] application for enforcement and Mullican Lumber's cross-petition for review, we conclude that Mullican Lumber advanced substantial objective evidence, consistent with the standard articulated in Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 N.L.R.B. 717, 725 (2001), and sufficient to demonstrate that, more likely than not, the production employees no longer supported the Union. Because the General Counsel of the Board did not challenge or contradict the evidence, we deny the Board's application for enforcement and grant Mullican Lumber's cross-petition for review.
Turner v. City Council, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15545 (4th Cir. 2008)
Appellant Hashmel Turner claims that the Council for the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, [*2] violated his First Amendment rights when it implemented a policy beginning in 2005 requiring that legislative prayers be nondenominational. Because the prayers at issue here are government speech, we hold that Fredericksburg's prayer policy does not violate Turner's Free Speech and Free Exercise rights. Likewise, the requirement that the prayers be nondenominational does not violate the Establishment Clause.
U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Virginia
Timmins v. Narricot Indus., L.P., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56585 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2008)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on a petition for injunctive relief, filed by Patricia L. Timmins ("petitioner"), Acting Regional Director of the Eleventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board"). The petition was filed pursuant to § 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (the "Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). 1 For the reasons set forth below, the petition for injunctive [*2] relief is DENIED.
U.S. District Court - Western District of Virginia
Henderson v. United States Dep't of Labor, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58074 (W.D. Va. July 31, 2008)
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Vera Henderson's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under Rule 59(e) and Relief from Judgment or Order under Rule 60(b) (docket no. 57). Henderson requests that I reconsider my April 11, 2007 Memorandum Opinion and Order ("the Order") dismissing in part certain of Henderson's claims. The arguments in Henderson's motion restate the same arguments that were previously considered in the Order. Because Henderson's arguments remain unpersuasive, the motion is denied.
Woodyard v. Gal-Tex Hotel Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55795 (W.D. Va. July 22, 2008)
The plaintiffs, Natalie R. Woodyard and Kareen V. Griggs, filed this action against Gal- Tex Hotel Corporation ("Gal-Tex"), 1859 Historic Hotels, Limited ("1859"), Marco Aldrete, and the Mary Moody Northern Endowment, raising claims of sexual harassment and gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and assault and battery under state law. Gal-Tex and 1859 have moved to dismiss Griggs' Title VII claims, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for [*2] failure to exhaust administrative remedies. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the motion to dismiss.
