Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

Today’s Third Circuit Opinion: “Argued October 28, 2015 (Opinion Filed March 12, 2019)”

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Mar 12, 2019 in Effect of decisions by other courts, Judges, Jury issues, Third Circuit Court of Appeals | 1 comment

Komis v. Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, 918 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2019).  This opinion by Judge Scirica today affirmed the result of a jury trial in this Title VII retaliation and retaliatory hostile work environment case.  Judge Scirica encapsulated virtually the entire ruling of the panel in the second paragraph of his opinion:

“This appeal requires us to decide whether federal employees may bring retaliation claims under Title VII.  We conclude they may.  We are then asked to consider whether the same standard governs federal- and private-sector retaliation claims, and what standard in particular applies to a federal retaliatory hostile work environment claim in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).  We need not resolve these questions, however, because Komis cannot prevail under any potentially applicable standard.  Accordingly, any error in the jury instructions was harmless. We will affirm.”

The question of whether federal employees may bring Title VII retaliation claims was made easier by the Government’s agreement that such claims can be brought.  Judge Scirica observed that the Government “does not contest and in fact accepts our longstanding view—shared by every circuit to consider the question—that federal employees may bring claims of retaliation under Title VII.”  He cited those other Circuit Court opinions.  But if there were any remaining doubt about this issue, Judge Scirica noted that Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008), supported the panel’s result as well.  Thus, today’s decision “reaffirm[ed] that federal employees may bring retaliation claims under Title VII.”

The panel went on to rule, as Judge Scirica previewed in the second paragraph of his opinion, quoted above, that any claimed error in the jury instructions was harmless.  Judge Scirica discussed the underlying issues in detail, but determined that it was not necessary to resolve them since plaintiff would lose under any resolution.

This was not a long opinion, and the issues did not appear to be extraordinarily complicated.  There was no indication as to the size of the appellate record.  Still, over forty months elapsed between the oral argument of this appeal and today’s decision.  There are many reasons why that could have occurred, and no fault can necessarily be attributed to Judge Scirica or the other panel members.  Nonetheless, that is an extraordinary length of time for an appellate opinion to be sub judice.  It is worth noting.

One Response to “Today’s Third Circuit Opinion: “Argued October 28, 2015 (Opinion Filed March 12, 2019)””

  1. Addie Alejandre says:
    November 26, 2019 at 2:24 pm

    The post shows some burning questions and issues which should be discussed
    and explained. What’s more, it is essential to comprehend
    within the very detail. In the article, one
    can easily find something basic, unusually for him, something that may be hugely useful.
    I am delighted with the data that I have just obtained.
    Thank you a lot!

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress