Published Opinions

There were no published labor or employment cases last week.

A published decision indirectly involving labor or employment issues which might be of some interest is In re Walter Energy, Inc ., Case No. 16-13483 (December 27, 2018). The case involved an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy in which ERISA-governed union welfare benefit plans sought contributions for employee retiree medical benefits against the debtor. This complex case required the Court to analyze the interaction between a federal statute requiring coal companies to fund retiree medical benefits and the Retiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection Act of 1988 (“RBBPA”), a law that established standards by which a bankruptcy court determines whether a debtor can terminate certain benefits obligations. The Court affirmed the bankruptcy and district court’s decision allowing the debtor to escape these obligations. 

Unpublished Opinions

There were no published labor or employment cases last week.

An unpublished decision not involving labor or employment issues but which might be of some interest is Jahn v. GEICO , Case No. 18-10853 (December 27, 2013). Like Walter Energy above, Jahn arose out of an adversary proceeding in a bankruptcy in which the trustee brought a bad faith action against the insurer. After the insurer prevailed in the trial, the trustee appealed, contending that the trial court erred in admitting attorney-client communications into evidence. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that (1) the trustee had waived the attorney-client privilege as to the emails at issue by offering testimony as to attorney-client communications himself; (2) the emails were not inadmissible hearsay because they were offered for purposes other than the truth of the matters asserted, the Court quoting precedent noting that “the value of a statement offered for nonhearsay purposes lies in its being said rather than in its content” (emphasis in original); and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying exclusion of the evidence under Rule 403. [ Author’s Note: The principal concern of the trustee was a statement in one of the emails in which the insured stated that “I really don’t think [GEICO] was in bad faith …” Of course this statement could have been harmful to the trustee’s case if focused on by the jury, but GEICO purportedly offered the emails for a different purpose, and there was no indication GEICO specifically called the jury’s attention to the statement for a non-authorized purpose. The Court decision does not indicate whether a limiting instruction was requested or given, or whether the trustee requested redaction of the prejudicial statement quoted above from the emails.] 

The Eleventh Circuit Weekly Update was prepared by Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission staff: case summaries by Chairman Frank E. Brown, and Appellate Counsel Cristina A. Velez and Katie E. Sabo; editing by Deputy General Counsel and Chief Appellate Attorney Amanda L. Neff; research and layout by Research Attorney Lesley Blanton.