Federal Court Updates
Discussion
Third Circuit: Pension Fund Delay in Seeking Withdrawal Liability Bars Recovery
On March 3, 2026, in RTI Restoration Techs., Inc. v. International Painters & Allied Trades Industry Pension Fund, the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for two companies that challenged a union pension fund’s effort to collect withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), eight years after the original contributing employer went out of business. The court held that the fund’s failure to notify the companies of their withdrawal liability “as soon as practicable,” as required under the MPPAA, was a defense that could be raised in federal court rather than exclusively through arbitration. The companies’ only connection to the original employer was through a shared officer, who had served at various times as a business partner, employee, and part-owner of the companies. Employers with any historical or indirect connections to multiemployer pension funds should consult with ERISA counsel to evaluate potential withdrawal liability exposure, particularly where successor or affiliate relationships may exist.
Fourth Circuit: General Control Does Not Create Joint Employment
On March 3, 2026, in Hoffman v. Inova Health Care Services, the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Title VII, ADA, and Virginia Human Rights Act claims brought by nurse anesthetists employed by a medical group against the hospital system at which they practiced, finding that the hospital system was not their joint employer. Applying the nine-factor Butler test for joint employment, the court found the plaintiffs failed to satisfy any of the factors, noting in particular that a hospital’s general authority over the administration of medical services is not a reliable indicator of an employer-employee relationship. The court similarly found that the hospital’s provision of equipment and facilities, and its delivery of compliance-related training on matters such as harassment and patient privacy, were standard practice in a hospital setting and not indicators of joint employment. Employers should note that the standards applicable to joint employer relationships may be further clarified once the DOL finalizes its proposed joint employer rule.
Tenth Circuit: Similarly Situated Requires More than Same Supervisor
On March 2, 2026, in Sousa v. Chipotle Services, LLC, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer in an age discrimination case where the plaintiff, a restaurant area manager terminated for pest and cleanliness issues at locations he oversaw, argued that younger employees supervised by the same decision-maker were not terminated for similar problems at their restaurants. The court held that a plaintiff asserting disparate treatment must produce sufficient evidence that the proposed comparators were similarly situated, not merely that they shared the same supervisor. In this case, the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the conditions at younger employees’ restaurants were comparable to those at his own. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the prior termination of another older employee for similar reasons constituted additional evidence of age discrimination, again finding insufficient evidence of comparable circumstances. This ruling emphasizes the importance of treating all employees consistently and documenting performance-related issues, especially when they are the basis for a termination decision.
Eleventh Circuit: Differing Disciplinary Histories Defeat Comparator Argument
On March 19, 2026, in Johnson v. Miami-Dade County, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer in a race discrimination and retaliation case brought by a Black police officer who was terminated following five disciplinary actions over a two-and-a-half-year period. Applying the similarly situated standard established in Lewis v. City of Union City, the court found that the plaintiff’s proposed comparators had materially different disciplinary records and therefore did not qualify as similarly situated employees in all material respects, which defeated the discrimination claim. The court also rejected the retaliation claim, finding that the shortest interval between the plaintiff’s EEOC complaint filings and subsequent disciplinary actions, approximately two months, was insufficient on its own to establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. This case reinforces the importance of maintaining consistent and well-documented disciplinary procedures, as courts will scrutinize whether employees facing adverse actions are treated comparably to others with similar disciplinary histories.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2026 ManagEase