Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

RUJAWITZ v. MARTIN (April 2, 2009)

Mark Rujawitz was an at-will employee of theIllinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for thirteen years. When he violated an injunction requiring him to keep his distance from his ex-girlfriend, IDOT fired him. A disciplinary panel reviewed the discharge and recommended a lesser level of discipline. Rujawitz was reinstated and his discipline was changed to a suspension without pay. Rujawitz brought a § 1983 action against the secretary of IDOT, alleging that he was denied his substantive due process rights. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Rujawitz had no property right in continued employment. Rujawitz appeals

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Posner and Rovner affirmed. In order to establish a due process claim, the court stated, Rujawitz had to demonstrate a constitutionally protected property interest. The Court looked to state law for that determination. The Court could locate no ordinance, law or employment agreement that changed Rujawitz's status from an at-will employee to one with an expectation of continued employment. The Court rejected Rujawitz 's position that the presence and use of the disciplinary procedures established a property interest protectable under the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

STAR INSURANCE CO. v. RISK MARKETING GROUP (March 31, 2009)

Star Insurance Company ("Star") and its co-plaintiffs registered a $2.4 million judgment in the Northern District of Illinois and began proceedings to collect it. Star also brought a separate action to pierce the corporate veil of defendants Risk Marketing and Cebcor Service Corp. In the collection proceedings, Star sought to set aside fraudulent transfers, to enjoin the disposition of assets, to appoint a receiver and to dissolve the corporate defendants. Instead of responding to Star’s requests, the defendants moved to consolidate the enforcement proceedings with the action to pierce the corporate veil. On August 31, 2007, the court enjoined the disposition of transferred assets and ordered the individual defendants to turn over certain assets in their possession. It also denied their motion to consolidate. On October 19, the court granted Star’s motion for judicial dissolution and the appointment of a receiver. On January 23, 2008 the court entered judgment for $2.4 million against the individual defendants. The defendants appeal the lower court's orders of August 31 and January 23.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Rovner and Evans affirmed. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction to review the August 31 order. The Court cited the general rule that an order is final and appealable if the decision ends the litigation on the merits and does not contemplate further activity. With respect to the August 31 order, the Court noted that the entire order was not immediately appealable. The decision contained separate orders arising from separate motions contained in the same document. Although the preliminary injunction order and turn-over order were immediately reviewable, the denial of the motion to consolidate was not appealable until the final judgment. The Court determined that it therefore had jurisdiction to review the earlier denial of consolidation.

On the merits, the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consolidate. The Court recognized that there were similarities between the collection case and the piercing the veil case but noted that the two proceedings sought completely different results. The Court also held that the district court properly entered judgment against the individual defendants for failing to return the object of the fraudulent transfers. The lower court properly applied Illinois law to the collection proceedings, found that fraudulent transfers had been made, ordered the property returned, and entered judgment as a sanction against the individual defendants for violating the order.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FOR YOUR EASE ONLY, INC. v. CALGON CARBON CORP. (March 31, 2009)

For Your Ease Only ("FYEO") sells jewelry boxes on the Home Shopping Network (“HSN”). Several years ago, FYEO obtained a default judgment in excess of $2 million against Mark Schneider and his wholly owned company Product Concepts Company ("PCC"). At the time of the judgment, PCC's principal assets were a relationship with and the right to payments from the HSN. In order to collect the judgment, FYEO began searching for assets. Schneider had since moved to Costa Rica. It noticed the deposition of Doug Fournier, Schneider’s brother-in-law. The subpoena advised Fournier of the lawsuit and the judgment. When Fournier got the subpoena, he met Schneider in Costa Rica. There, Schneider transferred his company's rights under the HSN agreement to a company that Fournier would create when he returned to the United States (Anewco). FYEO served HSN with a third-party citation prohibiting them from transferring any property or money to the judgment debtors. Notwithstanding the citation, HSN paid almost $400,000 to Anewco. FYEO requested an order for the turnover of all payments made by HSN. The district court denied the request, concluding that Fournier had acted in good faith and the transfer was not voidable under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). FYEO appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Wood and Tinder vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded. The Court identified one of the central issues on appeal as whether Schneider’s transfer to Fournier was made in good faith. Relying on Illinois cases, the Court concluded that a transferee who knows about a judgment against a transferor does not take assets in good faith. Here, the records indicated that Fournier knew about the judgment against Schneider at the time of transfer. Since he did not accept the assets in good faith, the transfer is voidable under the UFTA. The other issue on appeal is whether HSN violated the citation when it began making payments to Anewco. The Court rejected HSN's argument that it should not be found liable because it faced the choice of violating the citation or breaching the contract. The Court noted that HSN could have arranged to have had the funds held in escrow or in the registry of the court. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the record was not clear that HSN had actually violated the citation. The Court therefore remanded for the district court to make that initial determination.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SANDOVAL v. CITY OF CHICAGO (March 30, 2009)

Juan Sandoval and Sidney Pennix were Chicago police officers. They were also in the military reserve and on active duty in El Salvador and Iraq, respectively. When Chicago scheduled the examination for candidates for sergeant, Sandoval and Pennix requested an opportunity sit for the test. Chicago accommodated their requests by offering them the opportunity to take the test in, respectively, San Salvador and Frankfurt. They both took the test, passed and were placed on the eligibility list. They then filed suit pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”). They both allege that they should have been offered locations closer to where they were stationed and also seek compensation for the transportation cost to the testing locations. The district court granted summary judgment to the City of Chicago. Sandoval and Pennix appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Evans affirmed. The Court focused on the language of USERRA. It provides that a person serving in the military may not be denied a benefit of employment because of that service. In other words, said the Court, the Act requires an employer to treat persons on active duty the same as other employees. Here, Sandoval and Pennix seek an accommodation - not equal treatment. Chicago treated Sandoval and Pennix the same as it would have treated any other employee who was on leave for a non-military reason. The City did not violate USERRA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SMITH v. THE HOPE SCHOOL (March 30, 2009)

Tanum Smith was an aide at the Hope School, a residential facility for developmentally disabled children. On two different occasions in 2006, Smith was injured by students. After the second incident, Smith took some time off and received medical attention. Although an independent medical examination approved her return to work without restrictions, her primary care physician restricted her to light-duty and to assignments that did not require her to interact with the school's residents. The school assigned Smith to its dietary department so that she would not interact with residents. Later, she complained that a student approached her in the kitchen. She informed the school that she was leaving and would not return until the school provided her with a safe work environment. There is significant disagreement in the record over what happened next. What is not disputed is that Smith was absent from work many days and, when she submitted her FMLA paperwork, she had altered the physician’s certification form to add a diagnosis for "previous depression." The school found out about the alteration, denied her request for FMLA leave, and began disciplinary proceedings because of her absences. Ultimately, Hope School terminated Smith's employment because of the absences. Smith brought this action alleging that the school interfered with her FMLA rights and that they terminated her employment in retaliation for requesting FMLA leave. The district court granted summary judgment to Hope School. Smith appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Kapala affirmed. The Court first addressed her interference claim. In order to prevail, the Court indicated that she must demonstrate that she was eligible for FMLA protection, that she was covered, that she was entitled to leave, that she provided notice, and that her employer denied her benefits. Here, the only issue is whether an employer can deny FMLA leave because an employee submits false paperwork. The Court agreed with the district court that an employer can deny a request for FMLA leave when an employee adds a diagnosis to the physician’s certification form without the physician's knowledge. The Court concluded that her retaliation claim was closely linked to the interference claim. Because Hope School was entitled to deny her request for leave, they were entitled to terminate her employment on account of her unexcused absences.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

THE CORNUCOPIA INSTITUTE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (March 26, 2009)

The Cornucopia Institute submitted three separate FOIA requests to the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"). When the USDA failed to respond within the required time period, Cornucopia filed suit for injunctive relief, a writ of mandamus and attorneys fees. While the suit was pending, the USDA produced the responsive documents. The court dismissed the case as moot. The court also denied the request for fees on the grounds that Cornucopia had not "substantially prevailed." Cornucopia appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Kanne and Kendall affirmed. First, the Court rejected Cornucopia's argument that the lower court’s ability to still grant declaratory relief renders the case not moot. Declaratory relief is appropriate only when the ruling would have an impact on the parties. Cornucopia has failed to make such a showing. The Court concluded that a case must be dismissed when it is impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief – as is the case here.

With respect to attorneys’ fees, the district court concluded that Cornucopia was not a prevailing party under Buckhannon because it obtained no judicial relief. The Court pointed out that Buckhannon’s requirement of judicial relief was eliminated in the OPEN Government Act of 2007 (enacted while the appeal was pending). Because Cornucopia waived any argument that the Act applies retroactively, however, the Court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the request for fees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CHAKLOS v. STEVENS (March 30, 2009)

Richard Chaklos and Andrew Wist were employees of the Illinois State Police ("ISP"). Their job was to train forensic scientists. Chaklos and Wist also owned Midwest Forensic Services ("MFS"). In 2004, Illinois allocated funds to process a back load of DNA evidence from rape victims. The ISP received some of the money in order to hire and train additional forensic scientists. The ISP decided to retain a Florida company for those services. When Chaklos and Wist learned of this decision, they sent a protest letter to the ISP on MFS letterhead. The letter criticized the ISP for its use of a no-bid process, it criticized the Florida company, and it indicated that MFS could provide the same training at a lower cost. Upon receipt of the letter, the ISP suspended Chaklos and Wist for violating its policy regarding secondary employment. Chaklos and Wist filed a § 1983 action, alleging retaliation for their exercise of First Amendment rights. The district court found that the letter was protected speech but granted summary judgment to defendants on the grounds they were entitled to qualified immunity. Chaklos and Wist appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Rovner and Williams affirmed. The Court noted that the law with respect to qualified immunity had changed since the case was argued. At the time of argument, Saucier required courts to first determine whether a plaintiff had been deprived of a constitutional right and then determine whether that particular right was "clearly established." In Pearson, the Supreme Court recently concluded that lower courts could use their discretion in deciding which prong to address first. In addressing the First Amendment issue, the Court concluded that: a) plaintiffs were not speaking pursuant to their official duties under Garcetti, and b) looking at the content of the speech as a whole, it addressed a matter of public concern and was not motivated solely by personal interests. These conclusions led the Court to a balancing of the interests of the plaintiffs and their government employer. The Court noted the lack of disruption caused by the letter, the ISP's policy allowing secondary employment, the ISP's erratic enforcement of its secondary employment policy, and the dual purpose of the letter. Based on the closeness of this balancing, the Court determined that it was unnecessary to decide whether the letter was constitutionally protected. Instead, the Court concluded that it was not sufficiently clear to a government official that the conduct complained of would violate a constitutional right. The right was therefore not “clearly established." Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

UNITED STATES v. APPROXIMATELY 81,454 CANS OF BABY FORMULA (March 25, 2009)

Federal agents seized thousands of cans of powdered baby formula from a warehouse. They suspected that the cans had been stolen from retail stores. Many of the cans had altered labels - some of the cans were even past their "use by" date. The government filed a civil forfeiture suit, which is still pending in the district court. The owner of the cans asked the court for permission to sell those cans that were not yet beyond their “use by” date. The court denied the motion. The owner appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Sykes and Dow affirmed. The court first addressed the jurisdictional issue. Because the ruling on the motion was not a final appealable decision, the appellant relied on the "collateral order" doctrine. Under that doctrine, the Court noted, a party may take an immediate appeal from an order if it involves issues separate from those of the underlying litigation and there is a risk of irreparable harm. The Court found both criteria present in this case. The issues were clearly separate and, although unclear, the possibility of a monetary remedy from the government was unlikely.

On the merits, the Court noted that the procedural rules governing asset forfeiture actions were quite vague and provided no particular criteria for deciding a motion like the one presented to the court below. They do not, for example, as appellant argues, provide that the government has the burden of proof. The Court concluded that the lower court had considerable discretion in ruling on the motion. The judge below conducted an evidentiary hearing, where there was conflicting evidence concerning the threat posed by the formula. The Court could not conclude that the lower court abused its discretion in denying the motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HEITMANN v. CITY OF CHICAGO (March 25, 2009)

The City of Chicago and the police officers' union have agreed to a procedure for police officers to take compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a public employee who has accrued compensatory time off and has requested to use it is permitted to "use such time within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the public agency." Several officers with accumulated compensatory time off brought a suit against the City. They contend that they should be allowed to take a particular days of their own choosing unless their absence at that time would result in a shortage of available officers. Conversely, the City contends that it is the department's choice. In their view, an officer may submit a generic request for compensatory time off. The City then decides what days, if any, to allow. The magistrate judge below concluded that the City had no set procedure. The lack of procedure failed to ensure the rights of the officers. He issued a detailed injunction specifying the process the City must use in response to future applications. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Rovner and Williams vacated the injunction and remanded. As an initial matter, the Court noted that the Fair Labor Standards Act only allows injunctions in suits by the Secretary of Labor and only when the remedy at law is inadequate. Here, any failure of the City to honor the officers' time off rights is compensable by money. The unavailability of an injunction, however, does not mean that the officers are not entitled to a remedy. The Court concluded that the statutory language was not clear and included such open-ended words as "reasonable" and "undue." But the Court looked to an agency regulation that does address the issue. The agency's approach is not unreasonable and is thus entitled to deference under Chevron. The regulation defines "reasonable period" and "unduly disrupt" - and it does so in the same way that the officers do. The Court vacated the injunction and remanded for an award of non-injunctive relief to be determined by the magistrate judge.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

STAUB v. PROCTOR HOSPITAL (March 25, 2009)

Vincent Staub was a technologist at Proctor Hospital - and also a member of the Army reserves. Although he managed to balance the two obligations for years, things began to deteriorate in 2000. One of his supervisors was clearly irritated with him because of his reserve obligations. She was very vocal about her dislike of the reserve and her desire to “ get rid of him." Staub, unfortunately, already had a checkered employment history at the hospital. In January 2004, she gave Staub a written warning. She accused him of failing to assist other members of the hospital staff and of leaving his work area. As a result, Staub was instructed to keep his supervisors advised of his whereabouts and schedule at all times. A few months later, a similar incident occurred. Staub was fired immediately by the Vice President of Human Resources. She fired Staub for not only failing to follow the earlier warning, but also for his past issues. Although Staub filed a grievance insisting that the original incident was fabricated by his colleague who did not like him, the HR VP did not investigate. Staub filed an action against the hospital under the Uniformed Services Employment and the Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The jury found for Staub and awarded damages. The district court denied Proctor’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. Proctor appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Evans and Tinder reversed and remanded. The Court stated that USERRA prohibits adverse action based on military status. In order to recover, however, a plaintiff must show that the decision-maker, and not just any coworker, harbored the animus. Here, the HR VP was the decision-maker. There is no evidence in the record that she harbored any animosity against Staub or his military responsibilities. Realizing this, Staub relies on the “cat's paw” theory. Under this approach, the discriminatory animus of a non-decisionmaker is imputed to a decisionmaker when the non-decisionmaker exerts singular influence over the decisionmaker to cause the adverse employment action. The Court emphasized that the employer is not liable unless the decisionmaker relies exclusively on the information provided and fails to conduct any investigation. Here, the Court found that the evidence did not support that conclusion. The evidence was clear that the decisionmaker did not rely exclusively on any information provided by other employees. In fact, the Court criticized the district court for even sending the issue to the jury. Instead, the Court suggested an approach whereby the trial judge makes a threshold determination on whether a reasonable jury could find this exclusive influence before even admitting into evidence the animus of a non-decisionmaker.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A. BAUER MECHANICAL, INC. v. JOINT ARBITRATION BOARD (March 25, 2009)

A. Bauer Mechanical, Inc. ("Bauer") and Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union 130 ("Union") were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, the Joint Arbitration Board of the Plumbing Contractors' Association and Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union ("Board") has the authority to resolve their disputes. In 2005, the Board found that Bauer had failed to make some required contributions and ordered it to pay over $54,000. Bauer filed a complaint in state court to vacate the award. The Union removed the case to federal court and filed a motion for leave to file instanter an answer to Bauer's complaint and a counterclaim to enforce the arbitration award. The answer and counterclaim were attached to the motion. The district court granted the motion. Bauer did not respond. At a hearing on the Union's motion for entry of judgment, Bauer argued that the pleadings were not properly filed. The court explicitly recognized the pleadings and gave Bauer 14 days to respond to the counterclaim. Bauer filed a response but, again, challenged the propriety of the pleadings and did not address the merits. The court entered judgment on the Union's counterclaim. Bauer filed a timely notice of appeal. A few months later, on the Union's motion, the court dismissed Bauer's complaint and declared all judgments final and appealable. Bauer did not file a timely appeal of that order.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Wood and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the jurisdictional issue. The parties all agreed that the final judgment was the judgment of the court dismissing the complaint. Bauer filed its notice of appeal several months earlier. The Court cited Rule 4 (a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which treats a notice of appeal that is filed after a decision but before the entry of judgment as if it was filed on the date of judgment. Here, Bauer's complaint and the Union's counterclaim were mirror images of the other. The Court concluded that Bauer's belief that the earlier order disposed of all issues was reasonable and treated his notice of appeal as if it were filed on the date of judgment.

On the merits, the Court agreed with the district court that the Union's answer and counterclaim were properly considered. The Court agreed with Bauer that a motion is not a pleading. However, relying on the district court's discretion to manage its docket, the fact that the federal rules do not prohibit the attachment of a pleading to a motion and the plain reading of Rules 7 (a), (b), and 10, the Court approved of the district court's approach.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CAMPION, BARROW AND ASSOCIATES, INC. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD (March 24, 2009)

Dr. Michael Campion, through his firm, provided psychological evaluations. His clients included the City of Springfield. The services were provided pursuant to a contract executed in 2000 and automatically renewed annually. Timothy Davlin became mayor in 2003. Davlin was quite vocal in his criticism of psychological evaluations but continued the services on the advice of a city attorney. Beginning in mid-2004, several articles in the local newspaper criticized Dr. Campion for his involvement with a conservative group and his failure to disclose that involvement on his resume. An alderman reacted to the articles by pressuring Davlin to replace Dr. Campion. In mid-2005, the City Council unanimously approved a contract with a different psychologist. Although the city did not terminate the contract with Dr. Campion, it began referring all evaluations to the new psychologist. Dr. Campion brought an action against the city pursuant to § 1983, alleging that the city violated his First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the city, concluding that Campion had not demonstrated that his speech was a motivating factor in the city's decision. Campion appeals

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Wood and Williams affirmed. The Court noted that the only issue before it was whether Campion produced enough evidence that his protected activity was a factor in the city's decision. The Court rejected Campion's argument that it was the mayor, not the City Council, that actually had the power to act. Illinois law authorizes only the City Council to enter into contracts. The evidence here supports the fact that it was the Council that acted. The Court concluded that there was a lack of evidence indicating that the City Council was retaliating against Campion because of his speech or associations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

REMAPP INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. COMFORT KEYBOARD CO. (March 24, 2009)

ReMapp International Corp. ("ReMapp") and Comfort Keyboard Co. ("Comfort") had done business together for several years. ReMapp provided electronic materials, including circuit boards. In 2006, the parties engaged in oral and written communications regarding the purchase of several thousand circuit boards and several thousand microprocessors. When Comfort did not pay for the material, ReMapp brought a breach of contract action. At a bench trial, the court awarded damages for Comfort's failure to pay for the circuit boards. Although the court also found that Comfort had breached the contract with respect to the microprocessors, the court also found that ReMapp had not mitigated its damages and so awarded no damages. Comfort appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Kapala affirmed. The Court cited Wisconsin law for the proposition that contract may be formed in any manner that shows agreement, including the conduct of the parties. The Court determined that the evidence at trial supported the conclusion that the parties had an oral agreement for both the circuit boards and the microprocessors. Because the contract was not in writing and exceeded $500, the Court addressed the Statute of Frauds exceptions relied on below. With respect to the circuit boards, the Court concluded that the evidence supported ReMapp’s argument that they were specially manufactured goods and therefore not subject to the statute. The Court found the issue with respect to the microprocessors moot, because the court below awarded no relief on that issue. Alternatively, it found that the evidence supported the fact that Comfort had received written notice of the order and made no objection within 10 days, therefore taking that contract out of the statute as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

VENDETTI v. COMPASS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (MARCH 24, 2009)

Ronald Vendetti was an accountant in Stone Mountain, Georgia. His employer was acquired by Compass Environmental, Inc. ("Compass"), which was located in Chicago. Vendetti negotiated an employment agreement that provided that: a) he could continue to be located near Stone Mountain, b) he was entitled to one year severance if Compass relocated him, c) he could terminate the agreement with one year severance on 30 days notice for a material breach, and d) he could terminate the agreement without severance on 90 days notice for no cause. Within months, Vendetti's duties necessitated occasional travel to Chicago, to which Vendetti did not object. Later, Compass asked Vendetti to be in Chicago for two weeks of every month for the "indefinite future." Vendetti sent a 30-day notice letter, asserting the position that the company's request violated the agreement’s “location clause”. When Compass refused to provide severance, Vendetti brought an action for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment to Vendetti, holding that Compass violated the agreement. Compass appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Posner and Rovner reversed. The Court disagreed with the district court in many respects -- most importantly with respect to whether there was a violation of the location clause in the agreement. The Court concluded that business travel, at least to a point not reached here, did not constitute relocation as that term was used in the agreement. In reaching its conclusion, the Court noted: a) relocation was not defined in the agreement, b) it must have been obvious to Vendetti at the time he signed the agreement that travel to Chicago would be required, c) the company paid for all Vendetti’s travel expenses, and d) there were better ways to provide a party a veto over business travel. Since Vendetti did not identify any triable issues of fact, the Court not only reversed the district court's award of summary judgment to Vendetti but also reversed its denial of summary judgment to Compass.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MARION v. THE CITY OF CORYDON (March 23, 2009)

Having been caught shoplifting, Trent Marion fled from police, scuffled with police, fled again, and led police on a high-speed chase down a divided highway. For miles, Marion eluded the police and their attempts to stop him. Even with three deflated tires, Marion refused to stop. Eventually, Marion swerved into the median and drove toward the other side of the highway. The police surrounded and fired shots at the vehicle. Marion continued to rev his engine and shift from forward to reverse. The police continued firing at the vehicle until Marion stopped. Marion suffered serious gunshot wounds. He filed suit under §1983, claiming that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Although Marion opposed the motion, he did not file an affidavit. He did submit an affidavit with a motion to reconsider. The court denied the motion. Marion appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Kapala affirmed. The Court first concluded that it would not consider Marion's affidavit. The Court could consider it only if it consisted of newly discovered evidence, which it did not. On the merits of Marion's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, the Court stated that it would apply an objective reasonableness standard and consider the totality of the circumstances. The Court concluded that it was reasonable for the police officers to believe that Marion posed a threat to their safety and the safety of nearby motorists while he was in the median. The amount of force they employed was therefore reasonable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SIMPSON v. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WILL COUNTY (March 23, 2009)

Laura Simpson was the Director of the River Valley Juvenile Detention Center. In late 2002, Simpson began a period of paid sick leave. During her leave, the county auditor released a report that concluded that Simpson engaged in misconduct. The auditor recommended that she be fired. The report, which was initiated before Simpson went on leave and was initially focused on another county employee, concluded that Simpson a) allowed a psychologist under her authority to defraud the county, b) maintained an improper relationship with a juvenile detainee, and c) acted negligently in handling an attempted suicide. The Chief Judge fired Simpson. Simpson brought an action for interference with her FMLA rights and for retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Simpson appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne and Tinder affirmed. On the interference claim, the Court noted that the only element in dispute was whether the defendants denied Simpson a benefit of the FMLA. The FMLA does not require an employer to reinstate an employee after leave if he would have terminated her regardless of whether she took the leave. The Court concluded that Simpson failed to provide any evidence that the termination of her employment was related to her leave. The Chief Judge relied on the conclusions contained in the audit report and its recommendation to terminate Simpson's employment. The Court addressed Simpson’s FMLA discrimination claim under both the direct and indirect methods. The Court concluded that the evidence did not support a retaliation claim, for much the same reason that it did not support an interference claim.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CONTILLI v. LOCAL 705 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND (March 23, 2009)

Vito Contilli reached retirement age in 1995 but continued to work for two years. He retired in October of 1997 and applied for his retirement benefits in January of 1998. Applying their rule that a retiree had to apply for benefits, the union Pension Fund began paying his monthly pension payments in February. The Fund neither paid Contilli for the interim months nor increased his monthly benefit to take those months into account. Contilli brought an action, claiming that the approach violated ERISA’s non-forfeiture rule. The district court found in favor of the Fund. Contilli appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Ripple and Rovner vacated and remanded. The Court agreed that the retiree application requirement was not a problem – nor was a deferral of retirement without any benefit payment while the retiree is still working. Section 1053(a) requires, however, that any delay in benefits once a retirement is effective must be made up with payments for the missing months or with an actuarial adjustment to payments in future months.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BECK v. DOMBROWSKI (March 20, 2009)

Philip Beck (and the class he represents) was a shareholder of Equity Office Property Trust ("EO"), a real estate investment trust. In late 2006, after EO agreed to be acquired by Blackstone Group, a bidding war ensued between Blackstone and Vornado. Offers and counter offers were each followed by a new proxy solicitation from EO's board. Eventually, EO accepted Blackstone's last bid. Beck brought suit under the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, as well as under state law. He alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the proxy solicitation. The district court dismissed the federal claims for a failure to plead the required state of mind with particularity. The court dismissed the state law claim under the doctrine of abstention. Beck appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Wood and Tinder affirmed. The Court first identified the erroneous basis on which the district court had dismissed the action. Rule 14a-9 does not require a state of mind for a violation -- only a misrepresentation or omission. Notwithstanding the district court's error, the Court still concluded that the complaint should be dismissed. Citing the principle of Bell Atlantic that a defendant should not have to incur the expense of discovery unless the complaint is a substantial one, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ theories were too speculative to survive. The Court also affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the state law claim under Colorado River abstention.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

TEAL v. POTTER (March 20, 2009)

Joanne Teal had been employed by the U. S. Postal Service for almost 20 years when, during an altercation, she struck her supervisor's hand. Although the Postal Service attempted to discharge her, a grievance arbitrator determined that she should be suspended instead. Before she could be reinstated, however, Teal had to demonstrate her physical and mental fitness to resume her duties. For over eight months, the Postal Service went to great lengths to accommodate Teal's needs in scheduling the examinations. Finally, in July of 2003, the Postal Service advised Teal that they were terminating her employment. In the meantime, Teal filed an EEOC complaint in January of 2003, complaining that the original termination of her employment was discriminatory. Teal sued the Postal Service pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act. The district court concluded that she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and granted summary judgment to the Postal Service.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Rovner and Evans vacated and remanded. The Court that the Rehabilitation Act, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, requires a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action. Additionally, a plaintiff cannot complain of conduct that was not the subject of an EEOC charge. Here, Teal's EEOC charge complained of discrimination prior to her original discharge in March of 2002. The district court complaint, on the other hand, complains of her July 2003 dismissal. The 2003 dismissal was based on Teal's noncompliance with the conditions of her reinstatement, not the incident with her supervisor. The Court concluded that Teal had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Court remanded the case for a dismissal without prejudice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SWANSON v. BANK OF AMERICA (March 19, 2009)

Bank of America issued a credit card to Laura Swanson. Pursuant to the credit agreement, Bank of America could increase the interest rate if her balance exceeded her credit limit twice in any 12-month period. The higher interest rate was to take effect at the beginning of the billing cycle to which it applied. Swanson exceeded her credit limit at the close of the August 2007 and November 2007 cycles. Bank of America applied the higher interest rate effective at the beginning of the November cycle. Swanson brought suit, alleging that a Truth in Lending Act regulation precludes the imposition of a higher interest rate in that circumstance. The district court granted judgment to the bank. Swanson appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Evans affirmed. The Court first analyzed the regulation at issue. Although both the bank and Swanson argued that the regulations supported its position, the Court concluded that the regulation did not squarely address the issue at hand. It therefore consulted the commentary. The bank relies on the comment that states that no notice of the change is required if the specific change is set forth in the initial agreement. The comment gives as examples an increased rate after a lower introductory rate and an increased rate when a customer fails to keep a promised minimum account balance. Swanson, on the other hand, relies on the comment that notice must be given if the contract allows the creditor to increase the rate at its discretion. The Court noted that one appellate court and at least six trial courts had considered the issue and had all agreed with the bank's position. Finding these decisions "sensible," the Court also agreed with the bank. It pointed out that the contract between the bank and Swanson allowed the practice. An ambiguous regulation with an ambiguous commentary was not enough to override the specific contract term. Finally, the Court observed that the Federal Reserve had promulgated a new regulation that would prohibit the vary practice at issue. The new regulation is not effective until July of 2010 -- Swanson must live with the law as it stands today.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

THE CANCER FOUNDATION v. CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (March 19, 2009)

In the late 1990s, Martin Lapides and his corporate empire were suffering. He obtained a $23 million line of credit from the Gordon Brothers Group and others. Soon after, Gordon Brothers, working with Lapides' chief financial officer, began to wrest control of one of the corporations away from Lapides. Once Gordon Brothers and the others obtained control of the corporation, they placed it in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy triggered a whole host of financial troubles for Lapides. One of the victims of these troubles was the Cancer Foundation, when one of Lapides’ companies was unable to fulfill an $80 million pledge. Several individual investors in Lapides’ corporations filed suit and obtained a $7 million judgment against Lapides personally. The Cancer Foundation, Lapides and others who suffered harm from the conduct of Gordon Brothers filed suit in 2007 under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion and Evans affirmed. The Court noted the "generous" four year statute of limitations for a RICO cause of action runs from the time when a plaintiff discovers the harm. A plaintiff does not have to know that the harm is actionable to begin the limitations period. The Court agreed with the district court in holding that the complaint was barred. The conduct complained of was complete an entire decade before the suit began. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the statute did not begin to run until an article in Forbes alerted them to the alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs were clearly aware of their injury, even if they were not aware of all of its particular elements, well outside of the limitations period.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SEC v. ENTERPRISE TRUST CO. (March 18, 2009)

Although only in existence for two years, Enterprise Trust managed more than $100 million in hundreds of accounts. Some of the accounts were custodial only, and others authorized Enterprise to choose securities. Enterprise did not honor its customers instructions and traded very aggressively in both the noncustodial and custodial accounts. It lost more than half of the money in its care before the SEC stepped in. The lower court appointed a receiver to propose a distribution plan for Enterprise’s assets. The receiver proposed a plan under which holders of custodial accounts recovered approximately 60% of their investment while holders of noncustodial accounts recovered between 25 and 50% of their investment. The receiver also proposed the use of illiquid assets to repay the noncustodial accounts, further compromising their value. The district court approved the plan. Several owners of noncustodial accounts, who were not parties to the case, appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Manion affirmed. The Court first addressed the difficult question of appellate jurisdiction. In 1994, the Court held, in SEC v. Wozniak, that investors who were affected by a plan of distribution could not appeal without becoming formal parties through intervention. The Court believed that Supreme Court precedent supported the proposition that only a party could appeal. In 2002, however, the Supreme Court held, in Devlin v. Scardelletti, that nonparty class members could appeal. Devlin called into question the Court’s understanding of the Supreme Court’s holdings. After a review of applicable precedent, the Court concluded that a nonparty whose rights are decided and who cannot litigate the issue in some other forum does have the right to appeal. Thus, the Court overruled Wozniak. The Court found the resolution of the merits much easier. Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the Court found that the reasons the plan favored the custodial account holders over the noncustodial account holders – that the custodial account holders did not authorize Enterprise to take any action with their assets, they were unaware that Enterprise had used their assets, and they would not have benefited had Enterprise’s strategy succeeded -- made sense. In fact, the Court opined that the custodial account holders had the stronger objection -- that the noncustodial account holders received anything before the custodial account holders were fully repaid. Having found no abuse of discretion, the Court affirmed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link