November 14, 2023, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Tesla, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 22-60493, petition for review of NLRB order
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Southwick, Higginson), labor law
    • Granting petition for review of NLRB order ruling that Tesla infringed on employees’ rights to unionize when it required employees to wear specific Tesla uniforms and prohibited employees from wearing union-insignia t-shirts instead (though the policy allowed employees to wear as many union stickers on their Tesla uniform as they wanted), and vacating NLRB’s decision.
    • Tesla’s uniform policy, regarding “Team Wear” on the General Assembly (“GA”) line, was justified by Tesla “in two main ways. First, it minimizes mutilation of the vehicles in GA. Second, the Team Wear policy facilitates ‘visual management’: enabling team leads to distinguish among different types of GA employees based on shirt color and to ensure that GA employees are in their proper work areas—and that only GA employees are present in GA.” The NLRB held that the Team Wear policy was unlawful because “when an employer interferes in any way with its employees’ right to display union insignia, the employer must prove special circumstances that justify its interference.” The Court characterized this ruling as “all uniforms are presumptively unlawful and must pass the special-circumstances test.”
    • The Court held that the Tesla policy was nondiscriminatory, not aimed only at prohibition of union-insignia clothing, and that it was balanced with the allowance of employees to “adorn” their company uniforms with union stickers. In addition, the Court held that the NLRB’s de facto rule that would prohibit any uniform requirement exceeded the NLRB’s statutory authority. “This extremely broad rule would make all company uniforms presumptively unlawful, whether for white-collar workers or blue. Congress likely would not have intended to permit such a major decision without clearer statutory indication. For these reasons, it is well beyond the scope of the NLRA for the NLRB to declare all uniforms and dress codes presumptively unlawful and thus subject to a special-circumstances test.”
    • The Court also held that the NLRB failed to weigh the employer’s side of the scale, “elevat[ing] employee interests at the expense of legitimate employer interests.”
  • Port Arthur Community Action Network v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 22-60556, appeal from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
    • Graves, J. (Wiener, Graves, Douglas), administrative law
    • Vacating Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s order granting an emissions permit to a new natural gas facility and remanding for further administrative proceedings.
    • The Court summarized, “When a Texas state agency departs from its own administrative policy, or applies a policy inconsistently, Texas law requires it to adequately explain its reasons for doing so. In this case, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality declined to impose certain emissions limits on a new natural gas facility that it had recently imposed on another such facility. In doing so, it contravened its policy of adhering to previously imposed emissions limits, but it did not adequately explain why. It therefore acted arbitrarily and capriciously under Texas law.”
  • Louisiana v. Haaland, 23-30666, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Clement, J. (Clement, Haynes, Oldham), Inflation Reduction Act, intervention, appellate jurisdiction, standing
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction appeal by intervenor environmental organizations of preliminary injunction to require offshore oil-and-gas lease sale without restrictions imposed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management intended to protect the endangered Rice’s whale population, holding that intervenors did not have standing to appeal from preliminary injunction.
    • Because the BOEM, the primary party against whom the preliminary injunction was ordered, did not challenge the injunction, the Court held that the intervenors had to demonstrate independent standing to appeal the injunction. “Here, the causal chain of events necessary to support Intervenors’ theory of standing is so attenuated that the alleged harm is not ‘certainly impending.’ Namely, for the complained-of conduct (the oil-and-gas activities that will allegedly occur after Lease Sale 261, absent the challenged provisions) to result in the alleged injury (an Intervenor’s member’s diminished recreational or aesthetic interests resulting from the death of at least one Rice’s whale),” the Court found that a four-part chain of events, each with a speculative element, was too attenuated.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Bell, 21-51062, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. McTague, 22-10886, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Elrod, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Williams, 22-10946, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Higginson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Smith, 22-30172, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Dennis), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 262-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Cortez-Rodriguez, 22-50798, c/w 22-50801, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 96-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Sims, 23-10369, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Smith, Dennis), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Quezada-Lopez, 23-40270, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Torres v. Foust, 23-40413, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Southwick, Wilson), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • U.S. v. Angulo-Chora, 23-50059, c/w 23-50063, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Ho, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 160-month sentence on conviction of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and 24-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Brown, 23-60107, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Smith, Ho, Engelhardt), criminal, competency
    • Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, rejecting argument that district court erred in failing to sua sponte convene a competency hearing.
  • Morningstar v. Amazon.com, 23-60367, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jones, Higginson, Ho), arbitration
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from order to compel arbitration of pro se claims.
  • Renteria v. Lumpkin, 23-70007, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Elrod, Engelhardt), removal
    • Affirming district court’s holding that the plaintiff’s removal was untimely, and denying stay of execution.