This case involved two pilots who sued Key Airlines and several executives after their terminations, alleging that they were fired for organizing the Key Airlines Pilot Association union to negotiate better compensation and address safety concerns under the Railway Labor Act. The court found that the plaintiffs' at-will employment did not shield the defendants from liability for retaliatory discharge in violation of the RLA and state public policy, as the terminations were motivated by the pilots' union activities rather than other factors. Although no compensatory damages were awarded, the court imposed substantial punitive damages against the airline and named executives for their malicious conduct in intimidating pilots and suppressing union efforts. The core reasoning centered on evidence of threats, surveillance, and coordinated retaliation that violated federal labor protections for collective bargaining.
This case involves a long-running contract dispute from 1980 between prime contractor Frank Briscoe Co. and Clark County over construction of a wastewater treatment plant, including counterclaims for breach of contract and subcontractor claims. Briscoe sought declaratory judgment to pursue recovery from the County on behalf of subcontractor Howard Electrical under a 1985 liquidating agreement in which Briscoe acknowledged liability for Howard's claims and agreed to remit a share of any recovery. The County moved for summary and declaratory judgment, arguing lack of standing and that the agreement did not permit such a representative suit. The court granted Briscoe's motion and denied the County's, reasoning that under precedents like Severin v. United States and related cases, a prime contractor may maintain an action for subcontractor damages if the subcontract or liquidating agreement does not fully release the prime from liability to the subcontractor.
This case arose from unpaid pension contributions owed by a subcontractor on a federal construction project at the Nevada Test Site, leading union trustees to obtain a judgment against the prime contractor Reeco and subcontractor SME under ERISA and state labor statutes. Reeco paid the judgment and pursued cross-claims and third-party claims against USG Interiors (successor by merger to an alleged joint venturer DAB) and surety INA on payment and performance bonds to recover the amount. The court addressed multiple summary judgment motions, including whether a joint venture existed, whether claims were barred by the Miller Act's one-year statute of limitations or state limitations periods, and whether amended pleadings against Interiors could relate back based on notice and merger successor liability. It examined bond applications, merger agreements under Ohio, Delaware, and Nevada law that preserve liabilities, and facts showing Interiors had prior knowledge of the litigation. The court noted that all parties agreed the issues could be resolved on the motions rather than at trial.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedurefederal power
The case concerned a former Caesars Palace dealer who sued the casino, its employees, and IRS officials after the casino complied with an IRS summons by providing names, addresses, and Social Security numbers of dealers, which the IRS used to identify and prosecute tax violations under a 1981 amnesty program. The plaintiff alleged violations of IRS summons procedures under 26 U.S.C. § 7609, RICO through mail and wire fraud, unauthorized disclosure of tax information under 26 U.S.C. § 6103, and Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that the summons sought employment records directly between the plaintiff and the summoned party, so § 7609(a) third-party notice rules did not apply, § 7609(f) judicial approval requirements were inapplicable, and no abuse of process or protectable interest supported the constitutional claims since no court enforcement proceeding occurred.
The case involves Nevada ranchers (the Fallinis) who held BLM permits to install and maintain improvements at water sources on public grazing land for their cattle; they added highway guardrails at Deep Well to block wild horses (whose numbers had grown sharply after the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act) without first obtaining BLM approval, leading the BLM to cancel the permit and the IBLA to uphold that cancellation. The district court set aside the IBLA decision. The court reasoned that the agency action was arbitrary and capricious in its interpretation of the permit and failure to consider key facts, exceeded statutory authority because the Taylor Grazing Act and Wild Horses Act did not reserve or reallocate the state-law water rights at issue, and raised constitutional concerns regarding property rights.
The case involved consolidated lawsuits by 220 plaintiffs alleging that they suffered serious injuries from exposure to ionizing radiation while working at the Nevada Test Site during nuclear weapons tests conducted by the United States between 1951 and 1981. The plaintiffs brought negligence claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, asserting failures such as inadequate monitoring of radiation levels, lack of protective measures, insufficient training and warnings, and continued exposure despite known risks. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The court denied the motion, holding that the exception does not shield the government from liability for breaching objective duties related to employee health and safety in the nuclear testing program, including duties to monitor, warn, train, and provide protective measures, as the FTCA does not exempt all aspects of such testing from tort liability.
