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

BIELSKIS v. LOUISVILLE LADDER (November 18, 2011)

Raymond Bielskis was an acoustical ceiling carpenter employed by International Decorators. Although International Decorators usually supplied Bielskis with scaffolding necessary for his projects, he did own a mini-scaffold manufactured by Louisville Ladder that he used occasionally. One of those occasions was in March 2005. He was in the middle of a project when one of his co-workers borrowed the scaffold he was using. He brought in his mini-scaffold from his car, inspected it, and began to use it. He used it for several hours without incident. Then, without warning, it collapsed and he fell to the floor, sustaining injuries. He inspected the scaffold and noticed that one of the wheel stems had broken. Bielskis brought suit against Louisville Ladder, alleging counts based on strict liability and negligence. Louisville Ladder filed a third-party complaint against International Decorators for contribution. Bielskis retained Neil Mizen as his expert. In his report, Mizen concluded that the wheel stem failed because of a "brittle fracture" caused by excess tensile stress due to over tightening the stem. He further opined that the fracture could have been avoided with an alternative mechanism or by simply not tightening it as much. Louisville's expert examined the fracture surface carefully and did extensive testing and reconstruction. He also concluded that the stem failed because of a brittle fracture. He concluded, however, that the wheel was too loose, not too tight. Louisville moved to exclude Mizen's testimony. Judge Leinenweber (N.D. Ill.) agreed, concluding that Mizen's testimony failed under the Daubert factors. He excluded the testimony and granted summary judgment to Louisville. Bielskis appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Cudahy, Rovner, and Evans (who, as a result of his death, took no part in the decision) affirmed. The Court first addressed and resolved a jurisdictional matter. The district court’s order did not resolve the third party complaint brought against International Decorators and thus was technically not a final judgment. The Court concluded, however, that the summary judgment order in Louisville's favor resolved Louisville's third-party claim for all practical purposes and concluded the district court litigation. The Court turned to the merits. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the district court must ensure that an expert's methodology is scientifically reliable. Daubert set out a number of factors addressed to an expert’s theory: has it been tested, has it been subjected to peer review, what is its rate of error, and what is its level of acceptance. The district court's evaluation is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. The Court conceded that it was a close question, but ultimately found no abuse of discretion. It relied on several facts: plaintiff’s expert made no attempt to test his theory (Louisville's expert tested extensively), Mizen presented no evidence of the level of acceptance or rate of error of his conclusion, and his proposed alternatives were not supported by any engineering principles. In short, Mizen's opinion was long on speculation and short on fact. The Court went on to conclude that the district court did not err in denying Bielskis’ motion for continuance to obtain a new expert. Again, the Court considered it a close call but concluded that the district court did not abuse of discretion in managing its docket that way. Finally, the Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Louisville. Although acknowledging that expert testimony may not be necessary in all product liability cases, it was required here. The scaffold had been in Bielskis’ control for years and there was no evidence regarding its condition when it left Louisville. There was also little evidence of its use while under Bielskis’ control. Bielskis could not prevail without expert testimony on those issues.

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

OVERLY v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (November 10, 2011)

Krysten Overly was a financial advisor at KeyBank in central Indiana. Rick Bielecki became her immediate supervisor in early 2007 but their interaction was limited because of his broad regional supervisory obligations. One day, while he was working with her, he observed that she was using procedures that were not in compliance with the Bank's policies. After an investigation, the compliance office recommended her termination. With Bielecki’s and his supervisor’s support, Overly escaped with a warning and a small fine. Overly complained to the Human Resources Department about the disciplinary action as well as some sexist remarks she alleged were made by Bielecki. The Bank reorganized beginning in 2007 and almost tripled the number of financial advisors nationwide. Bielecki added one advisor to Overly's region and realigned branch bank assignments. Overly registered a complaint with KeyBank's CEO. She cited the disciplinary action and the sexist remarks, as well as the loss of territory. The Bank conduct an investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination or retaliation. Overly submitted her resignation to Bielecki on October 1, 2007. Upon receipt of the resignation, Bielecki applauded, pushed her toward the door, and yelled "Good Riddance Bitch." Overly filed suit alleging hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and gender discrimination. Judge Barker (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment in KeyBank's favor. Overly appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Evans (who, as a result of his death, took no part in the decision) and Williams and District Judge Conley affirmed. The Court first addressed the hostile work environment claim and concluded that Overly's work conditions did not meet the "severe or pervasive" requirement. Bielecki called her "cutie" five or 10 times, referred to her "pretty face," and made her leave her purse outside of a meeting room. None of this was threatening, it did not occur very frequently, and it did not unreasonably interfere with her work. The Court conceded that adding the disciplinary incidents to the mix might approach the actionable level, but declined to do so because there was no evidence that the discipline was related to her gender. Furthermore, she admitted the noncompliant activities. Likewise, the territory realignment was not shown to be related to gender. The Court acknowledged that there was evidence of gender bias after her resignation. But Bielecki's conduct and remarks after receiving her resignation cannot support a hostile work environment claim. The Court quickly dispensed with her constructive discharge claim since it imposes a higher standard than the hostile work environment claim - which it had just rejected. The Court also rejected the gender discrimination claim, again refusing to consider the resignation remarks as direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination because of the timing of those remarks. Finally, the Court rejected her Title VII retaliation claim. Her complaint to the Bank does constitute protected activity but there is no evidence in the record of a causal link between the activity and Bielecki's conduct.

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

MAKOWSKI v. SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC (November 9, 2011)

Lisa Makowski had been the Marketing Director for the SmithAmundsen law firm for over two years when she discovered she was pregnant. She notified firm management and was given FMLA leave beginning in November of 2007. She gave birth on December 2. The next month, the firm’s all-male Executive Committee conducted its yearly meeting. At that meeting the Executive Committee decided to eliminate Makowski's position. The firm's Chief Operating Officer, Michael DeLargy, delegated to Molly O'Gara, the Director of Human Resources, the task of consulting with outside labor counsel before firing Makowski. DeLargy also commented that Makowski "doesn't fit into our culture." When Makowski returned to the office to collect her belongings, O'Gara told her that she was fired because of her pregnancy and leave and that she was not the only one. Makowski brought suit under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and for both interference and retaliation under the FMLA. Judge Darrah (N.D. Ill.) ruled that O'Gara's statement was inadmissible and granted summary judgment to the defendants. Makowski appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Rovner and Williams and District Judge Young reversed and remanded. The Court first considered the evidentiary ruling with respect to the O'Gara statements. The statements are hearsay, unless they fit within an exception, and are not admissible. One exception, under Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) , applies to the statement of a party’s agent made during the course of her employment, and offered against the party. The O'Gara statements are the statements of a party's agent and are offered against the party. The firm contends that they were not made within the scope of her employment. The district court agreed, because O'Gara was not involved in the termination decision. The Court disagreed with that analysis. The agent need not be personally involved in the employment action at issue if her duties relate to that decision-making process. Here, O'Gara was not involved in the decision to fire Makowski. But her job duties did include ensuring that the firm complies with antidiscrimination laws and she was even involved in the Makowski termination to the extent that she was the one designated to consult with outside labor counsel before her termination. She was acting within the scope of her employment and the statements are admissible. Having ruled on the admissibility of statements, the Court found no difficulty in finding jury questions on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim and the FMLA interference and retaliation claims. It reversed the summary judgment rulings.

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

CEDAR FARM v. LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (September 29, 2011)

Cedar Farm owns almost 2500 acres of property bordering the Ohio River in southern Indiana. The property is unusual. It contains, among other things, an antebellum mansion listed on the National Register of Historic Places and a habitat for a number of rare and endangered species. Almost 90% of the property is encumbered by an oil and gas lease with Louisville Gas and Electric Company. Under the express terms of the Lease, it terminates if: a) Louisville stops using it for gas production or storage, b) Louisville surrenders it (for $1.00), or c) Louisville fails to make required payments after a demand and 30 days to cure. The Lease also requires Louisville to pay for any damages it causes the property. Cedar Farm brought suit against Louisville, alleging that Louisville removed trees unnecessarily, installed unsightly pump jacks, and dumped construction debris, among other things. Although its original complaint sought both damages and ejectment, Cedar Farm ultimately dismissed its damages count with prejudice and proceeded solely on its ejectment claim. Judge Hamilton (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to Louisville, concluding that the only remedy in the Lease for Louisville's alleged conduct is damages. Cedar Farm appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Wood and Williams affirmed. Under Indiana law, a lessee under an oil and gas lease acquires a property interest once it begins production. After that point, courts are reluctant to terminate leases if the lessor can be adequately compensated by damages. Cedar Farm contends that this is such a case, given the property's historical and environmental significance and Louisville's egregious treatment of the land. The Court conceded that such could be the case but concluded that Cedar Farm could not simply rely on its allegations at summary judgment stage. Since there is no evidence in the record supporting the complaint's allegations, and no claim that Cedar Farm was prevented from presenting such evidence, summary judgment for Louisville was appropriate. The Court also declined Cedar Farm's request for certification to the Indiana Supreme Court.

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

CLARETT v. ROBERTS (September 23, 2011)

On in early October morning in 2005, police officers from Lynwood and Lansing arrived at the home of Patricia Clarett. The officers suspected that Clarett and her sons were involved in a burglary. Although Clarett and the officers had very different recollections of what happened after they arrived at her home, they do agree that Lansing police officer Steven Roberts used his Taser on Clarett three times. Clarett brought an action against a number of police officers, alleging excessive force and false arrest, as well as state law, claims. After a jury found for the defendants, Judge Grady (N.D. Ill.) denied Clarett's post-trial motions. Claret appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed the evidentiary challenges. Clarett challenged the district court's ruling in limine that two criminal convictions, misdemeanor retail theft and obstruction of a police officer, were admissible. The Court concluded that neither conviction was admissible under Rule 609, in that neither had an element of dishonesty. Furthermore, under Rule 608 (b), defendants could not prove the convictions with extrinsic evidence or make affirmative use of them. However, probably in response to the pretrial ruling, Clarett's own counsel introduced the convictions during her case-in-chief. In Ohler, the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant waived his right to challenge the admission of convictions if he introduced evidence of it first. The Court noted that it had never applied Ohler in a civil context, although other circuits had. It concluded that the principle should apply in civil cases. Clarett cannot challenge the admission of the convictions. Next, Clarett challenged Officer Roberts' testimony about his use of the Taser as impermissible expert testimony. The Court disagreed. The testimony was not of a technical nature but was limited to Roberts' own experience. Alternatively, since all parties agreed that he used the Taser three times, any error was harmless. Finally, Claret challenged the district court's exclusion of evidence that there was no warrant. The Court concluded that no only was the evidence of no warrant irrelevant to the excessive force or false arrest claims, but also that Clarett in fact testified on two occasions that there was no warrant. The district court did not abuse its discretion. Clarett also challenged the jury instructions. The Court found no merit in her challenges. Finally, Claret challenges the jury's verdict, asserting that three Taser deployments constitutes excessive force. The Court noted the conflicting versions of the events of that morning in October. It concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict.

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

SHOW v. FORD MOTOR CO. (September 19, 2011)

David Show and his passenger were both injured when Show's Ford Explorer rolled over after being struck by another car. They brought suit against Ford, alleging that the vehicle had an unstable design and was therefore defective. Plaintiffs never designated a design expert witness. Magistrate Judge Denlow (N.D. Ill.) concluded that plaintiffs could not prevail without expert testimony and therefore granted summary judgment to Ford. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Williams affirmed. The Court noted that Illinois law applied and that Illinois law recognized two approaches to a design defect case. The consumer-expectation test requires proof that the vehicle did not perform up to the safety standards that an ordinary consumer would expect. The risk-benefit test, on the other hand, looks instead to the balance between the benefits of the challenged design and the dangers inherent in the challenged design. The plaintiffs concede that expert testimony is required in a risk-benefit case but claim that is not required in a consumer-expectation case, since jurors know what an ordinary consumer would expect. As an aside, the Court questioned whether the need for expert testimony was a question of Illinois or federal law. If the two tests are merely methods of proof rather than theories of liability, federal law may apply as the law of the forum. Since the parties and the magistrate judge assumed that Illinois law controlled, the Court did not resolve the question. Even under Illinois law, the Court concluded that expert testimony is necessary. Under the consumer-expectation test, consumer expectations alone cannot resolve liability. There are questions of causation and physics and engineering that jurors are simply unable to resolve without expert testimony. The magistrate judge properly granted summary judgment in the absence of such testimony.

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

DURAN v. TOWN OF CICERO (August 9, 2011)

Alejandro and Maria Duran threw a party at their Cicero, Illinois home to celebrate their daughter’s baptism. Close to 100 people attended. The Cicero police received two telephone complaints from neighbors. Shortly after the Cicero police responded to the second complaint, the party guests and the police exchanged heated words. Once the police actually entered the property, ostensibly to make an arrest, the verbal melee became a physical one. Seventy-eight guests claim they were physically injured and several police officers required medical treatment. The police made seven arrests but there were no convictions. The 78 injured guests brought suit against 17 police officers and the Town of Cicero pursuant to § 1983 and Illinois law. They also asserted a spoliation of evidence claim based on the police's confiscation of two video cameras, one that was returned but that did not contain any footage of the physical confrontation and one that was not returned that did contain footage of the confrontation. Before trial, Cicero stipulated to his liability under § 1983 and to its vicarious liability on the state law claims. The jury returned verdicts in favor of 23 plaintiffs, on which the court entered judgment. The court then tried to spoliation case. It excluded from that case the issue of the returned video camera, rejecting plaintiffs' theory that preventing the creation of evidence amounts to spoliation. Cicero filed a Rule 59 motion to amend the judgments pursuant because they appeared to list separate awards against both the individual defendants and Cicero for the same injuries. Judge Grady (N.D. Ill.) denied the motion. Cicero appeals the denial of the Rule 59 motion. The plaintiffs cross-appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Ripple, Manion, and Sykes vacated and remanded in part and affirmed in part. The Court first addressed Cicero's appeal. It noted the fundamental principle that a plaintiff is only entitled to one recovery for his injuries. Here, Cicero had stipulated to its liability and that issue should not have been submitted to the jury. It was -- and they were obviously confused. In addition, instructions and special verdict forms asked damages to be assessed by defendant or by claim and not for a particular injury to a particular plaintiff. A Rule 59(e) motion is a proper way to correct a manifest error of law such as this. The Court concluded that it was reasonably clear what the jury was trying to do and remanded for an amended judgment to eliminate any possibility of double recovery. The plaintiffs raise three issues on appeal: the exclusion of the videotape, the exclusion of misconduct complaints against one defendant, and the exclusion of a civil rights conviction against another defendant. First, the Court agreed with the district court that the evidence regarding the returned video camera was properly excluded. Spoliation occurs only when one fails to preserve existing evidence. Here, plaintiffs argue that the videographer would have continued recording the physical melee, creating valuable evidence for trial. That does not amount to actionable spoliation in Illinois. Second, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding four misconduct complaints accusing one of the defendants of verbally abusing minorities. The Court noted the substantial leeway a district court has in ruling on an issue like this that requires a balancing of the evidence’s probative value with its prejudicial effect. Third, the plaintiffs sought to introduce a criminal conviction on a civil rights charge against another officer. They argued admissibility under either Rule 609(a)(1) or 609(a)(2). The Court concluded that plaintiffs forfeited their (a)(1) argument because they did not renew it at trial after the court's conditional pretrial ruling excluding it. With respect to (a)(2), the Court concluded that, although there was some evidence of an attempted cover-up, the crime with which the officer was charged and convicted did not involve dishonesty.

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

MORISCH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (July 29, 2011)

Gerald Morisch visited the emergency room at the VA Medical Center in Marion, Illinois, complaining of jaw and neck pain. He was referred to a dentist. A few days later, he had an appointment with his primary care physician at the Medical Center. He was referred to an ENT specialist. The specialist noticed a small mass of his neck. She performed a biopsy and ordered a CT scan. The radiologist that perform a CT scan recommended an ultrasound follow-up -- but no one told Morisch. About a month later, Morisch suffered a stroke. He brought a medical malpractice claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Morisch and his wife both testified that she called the St. Louis VA Hospital, where Morisch had the CT scan, on two occasions and reported stroke symptoms. Judge Murphy (S.D. Ill.) entered judgment in the government's favor after a four-day bench trial, concluding that he failed to establish a violation of the standard of care or any proximately caused injury. Morisch appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Williams and Tinder and District Judge Gottschall dismissed. The Court first noted that the transcript of the government expert’s testimony from the four-day trial is the only part of the trial record included in the appellate record. The Court concluded that it could not sufficiently review the record. Morisch thus forfeited his appeal. Notwithstanding that conclusion, the Court went on to conclude that the district court did not err in its finding. In order to prevail on his tort claim, Morisch had to establish the proper standard of care, a failure to comply with that standard, and a proximately caused injury. Proximate cause requires expert testimony. Here, the expert testimony was that, without the evidence of the phone call, the doctors had no reason to follow-up with Morisch after his examination. The district court did not err in concluding that the telephone call testimony should be disregarded. It was unsupported by phone records and inconsistent with other testimony and logic. Morisch’s stroke was therefore not the foreseeable result of any conduct on the part of the VA Hospital. 

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

COBIGE v. CITY OF CHICAGO (July 12, 2011)

In the summer of 2006, the Chicago Police arrested Patricia Cobige on a drug charge. It was not the first time she was arrested. She was sentenced to four years in prison in 1998 on drug charges and, again, sentenced to three years in prison in 2001. Unfortunately, after her 2006 arrest, she suffered a heart arrhythmia and died while in police custody. Her son brought suit against several police officers and the City under both state and federal law. A jury awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $4,000 in punitive damages. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Williams affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. The Court examined the trial evidence. It concluded that a jury could have found that Cobige had uterine tumors, that she experienced severe abdominal pain as a result, that the pain led her to produce more adrenaline, that the adrenaline in combination with a pre-existing heart condition caused her death, that routine examinations and care would have prevented her death, and that four police officers ignored her complaints of pain. The City's principal argument is that the plaintiff's expert testified that death can occur only a short period after each spike in adrenaline and that there was testimony that Cobige died in a peaceful sleep. The Court conceded the point but countered that the jury was not required to believe the testimony that she died in her sleep. They could have reasonably believed that she continued to experience the pain throughout the night until her death -- or even that she had been dead for hours. The City also complained that plaintiff's expert was not an expert in police procedures. Again, the Court conceded the point but countered that his testimony only went to Cobige's need for treatment. The City could have presented evidence that she was not treated because of other extenuating circumstances. But it did not. The Court did take issue with the district court's exclusion of much evidence concerning Cobige's drug problem and history of arrests. The district court allowed her son to testify that she was a friend, a supporter, and a role model and that she provided wise advice. The court then admitted evidence only of Cobige 's latest drug conviction. The court relied on evidence Rules 404(b) and 609. Rule 609 is irrelevant in that it deals with attacks on the witness’ character for truthfulness and Cobige obviously never testified. Rule 404(b) also deals with evidence of character and prohibits such evidence when it is offered to show "action in conformity therewith." That is not why the City offered the evidence. It offered the evidence on the question of damages. The exclusion of that evidence requires a new trial, which should be limited to the subject of damages.

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BUCHMAN (May 16, 2011)

Christopher Buchman borrowed money from the Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency. He secured the loans with mortgages on three pieces of property. When he defaulted, the United States filed suit to foreclose. His attempts to negotiate a resolution were unsuccessful and a default judgment was entered. A year later, the property was sold at public auction. Judge Griesbach (E.D. Wis.) confirmed the sale and entered a deficiency judgment against Buchman, rejecting his arguments that the sale price was inadequate and that he wanted an opportunity to redeem the property. Buchman appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook, Circuit Judge Bauer, and District Judge Young affirmed. The Court first rejected the government's argument that the completed property transfer made the appeal moot. Although the Court did hold that it would not upset the completed sale, it noted that it could vacate the deficiency judgment or order the government to give up some of the proceeds of the sale. On the merits, the Court agreed with the district court that Buchman forfeited his claim that the court erred in not providing him an opportunity to redeem. He allowed a default judgment to be entered and, even then, waited more than a year to complain. With respect to the inadequate price argument, the Court applied the Wisconsin rule that a sale should be confirmed unless the price "shocks the conscience." Buchman’s only evidence was an appraisal. A competitive sale is better evidence of value than an appraisal. Also, Buchman never identified anyone who is or was willing to pay a higher price. The Court found no error in the sale confirmation.

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

MARCUS & MILLICHAP INVESTMENT SERVICES OF CHICAGO v. SEKULOVSKI (March 23, 2011)

Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services (M&M) is a national commercial real estate brokerage firm with subsidiaries operating in several states. The subsidiaries operate independently, as distinct entities, and enter into their own contracts with their salespersons as independent contractors. The subsidiaries are required to incorporate M&M's independent contractor policies into these agreements. Tony Sekulovski worked as a salesperson with M&M’s Ohio subsidiary from 1999 until 2005, when he moved to Chicago and began working with the company's Illinois subsidiary. Contrary to the policy, Sekulovski never entered into a written independent contractor agreement. Salespeople were not paid a salary but were compensated with commissions. Generally, a salesperson and the subsidiary divide project commissions evenly. A salesperson can enjoy up to a 70/30 split, however, as he reaches certain annual sales thresholds. In addition, if more than one salesperson is involved in a deal, they split the salesperson's side of the commission based on an allocation reflecting the contribution each made to the deal. In 2006, Sekulovski and another agent, Mark Luttner, collaborated on many deals. Throughout most of the year, they shared the salespersons' commission equally. Once Sekulovski reached his commissions target, however, they began submitting allocations that attributed a much higher portion of the commission to Sekulovski. M&M claims that he did so in order to increase the salespersons' share of the total commission and that he kicked back an appropriate allocation to Luttner. Smith left M&M Chicago in June 2007. Before he did so, he directed two commissions be paid to him rather than the company. He also later retained commissions for deals that began while he was in Chicago but did not close until later. The company sued Sekulovski for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, fraud, and tortious interference. Sekulovski counterclaimed for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unlawful withholding of wages, and tortious interference. At trial, Luttner testified that he and Sekulovski artificially inflated Sekulovski’s allocation in order to maximize the salespersons' commissions. Judge Leinenweber (N.D. Ill.) granted judgment as a matter of law to M&M on Sekulovski’s statutory wage claim and a jury found for M&M and against Sekulovski on all other claims. Sekulovski appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Kanne affirmed. As a preliminary matter, the Court concluded that the parties had an implied contract and that the terms of M&M’s independent contractor policy governed. The Court then addressed Sekulovski’s arguments on appeal, which it placed in four categories: evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act, and post-trial motions. The evidentiary objections went principally to the district court's limitation on Sekulovski’s ability to cross-examine Luttner on bias. Although the Court conceded that witness bias is generally admissible for impeachment purposes, it concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The district court found some of it to be of little value, some that would cause confusion, and some that was inadmissible hearsay. The Court added that the jury heard plenty of evidence of Luttner's hostility toward Sekulovski. The only jury instruction objection that Sekulovski preserved was his argument that M&M’s damages should have been calculated based on its loss rather than Sekulovski’s overpayments, arguing that part of the overpayments would have rightfully gone to Luttner. The Court concluded that the appropriate measure of damages was the amount of commissions that Sekulovski received that he would not otherwise have received but for his fraud. With respect to the Wage Payment Act, the Court questioned the district court's finding of fact that Sekulovski was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Notwithstanding its lack of confidence in the district court's rationale, the Court affirmed the dismissal on the basis of the jury's finding that Sekulovski was not due the commissions he claimed were due him under the Act. Finally, the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sekulovski's post trial motions.

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

O’ROURKE v. PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI (March 17, 2011)

Michael O'Rourke accumulated several thousand dollars of debt on his credit card but never paid it. In fact, he assumed the statute of limitations barred any payment obligations. So, when lawyers for Palisades Acquisition XVI, the debt's owner, sent him a collection notice, he ignored it. Palisades filed suit in state court and attached an exhibit that appeared to be, but was not, a credit card bill issued by Palisades to O'Rourke. Palisades eventually dismissed the state court case. O'Rourke brought suit against Palisades in federal court, alleging that the exhibit violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. His theory was that Palisades included the exhibit in order to mislead the state court judge into thinking that it was an accurate statement of the actual debt. Judge Norgle (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Palisades. O’Rourke appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Tinder (concurring in the result) affirmed. The Court stated that the Act prohibits both the false representation of a debt's "character, amount, or legal status" and the use of deceptive means to collect a debt. On its face, the Act does not say whether it includes statements made to a state court judge. The Court concluded that it did not. The Act is intended to protect consumers. Courts have extended its protection to third parties only when there is a special relationship (e.g., attorney, executrix) with a consumer. The Court held that the Act only applies to statements directed to consumers, and those with a special relationship to a consumer. Since a state court judge is an impartial decision-maker, the exhibit is not a covered communication.

Judge Tinder concurred in the result but disagreed with the Court’s rationale. He noted that the language of the Act is quite expansive, that its goal is to reduce abusive debt collection practices, and that state judges are powerful participants in the debt collection process. Why, then, should a false and misleading court submission not be a violation of the Act? Judge Tinder did not answer that question because he did not believe it necessary or prudent. Even assuming that the Act applies to communications to judges, O'Rourke loses. Because the exhibit was not misleading on its face, O'Rourke was required to submit extrinsic evidence. Although he submitted an expert report, the trial court excluded it. Without any extrinsic evidence, O'Rourke is unable to establish a genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment for Palisades was proper.

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

ZAMECNIK v. INDIAN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT (March 1, 2011)

Heidi Zamecnik and Alexander Nuxoll were public high school students who opposed homosexuality on religious grounds. In response to a "Day of Silence" promoted by a group critical of those who harassed homosexuals, they participated in a "Day of Truth" the next following school day. Zamecnik wore a shirt bearing the phrase "Be Happy, Not Gay." A school official covered the words "Not Gay" and prohibited the phrase as a violation of the school’s rule against derogatory comments. Zamecnik and Nuxoll brought suit and sought a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the application for an injunction. Almost 3 years ago, the Court reversed. The Court reviewed the phrase as "only tepidly negative" and concluded that the school district presented insufficient facts to support a conclusion that the words would lead to substantial disruption under Tinker. Judge Hart (N.D. Ill.) eventually granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, awarded each $25 in damages, and entered a permanent injunction. The permanent injunction is more expansive than the preliminary one in that it runs in favor of all students and includes not just shirts but also all clothing and personal items. The District appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne, and Rovner affirmed. The Court first rejected the District's argument that injunctive relief was moot because Zamecnik had graduated and Nuxoll had finished his classes and was about to graduate. The Court noted that the injunction now runs in favor of all students, not just the named plaintiffs. Such an injunction is proper as long as the group is specified. The District then argued that it presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment. The Court considered the three types of evidence presented. The first was "negligible" -- an affidavit of a school official recounting statements by unidentified school officials themselves recounting statements by unidentified students purportedly identifying incidents of homosexual harassment. The second type was evidence of the harassment of Zamecnik. But statements that are otherwise permissible cannot be suppressed simply because they are met by violence or harassment by those who oppose the speaker's view. In addition, the harassment was not engendered by the T-shirt, but by the lawsuit. The third piece of evidence presented by the District was an expert report, of which the Court was particularly critical. The opinion section of the expert’s 38-page expert report consisted of 2 1/2 pages and, in the Court's view, failed to satisfy any of the Rule 702 requirements. In fact, the Court noted that his conclusion -- that the phrase at issue is "particularly insidious" in a public school setting -- "comes out of nowhere." The expert described no methodology or research and gave no indication that he is familiar at all with the school the plaintiffs attended. His opinions are nothing more than mere conclusions. The district court was correct in concluding that this evidence was insufficient to survive summary judgment. Finally, the Court affirmed the $25 damage awards as justified by the record.

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

SOW v. FORTVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (February 11, 2011)

Mouhamadou Sow, a Senegal native, traveled all over the United States selling African items at fairs and festivals. In November 2007, Sow tried to cash a $1000 money order at the Fortville, Indiana Post Office. He had purchased the money order at a United States Post Office in Columbus, Ohio. The postal clerk suspected that the money order was counterfeit and told Sow as much. After conferring with her supervisor, she told Sow that she did not have enough money to cash the money order and directed him to the nearby McCordsville Post Office. Once Sow left, a postal employee reported the suspected forgery incident to the Fortville police. The Fortville police notified the McCordsville police, who stopped Sow before he reached the post office. Fortville Officer Michael Fuller arrived at the scene. The police interrogated Sow for over an hour. Sow produced the money order but was unable to produce a receipt. He did produce other receipts and money orders. Both officers examined the money order and also believed that it was counterfeit. They called post office headquarters and a local postal inspector and described the money order and its serial numbers. Both postal employees told the officers that the money order was counterfeit. The officers did not call the Columbus Post Office where Sow told them he purchased the money order, even though they had its phone number. The police arrested Smith. The charges were ultimately dismissed. Smith brought suit under §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 against the Fortville postal employees, the two police departments, and Officer Fuller. He alleged that he was unlawfully arrested, that he was physically mistreated, and that his handcuffs were too tight. Judge Young (S.D. Ind.) dismissed the postal employees and granted summary judgment to the police departments and Fuller. Sow appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Evans and District Judge McCuskey affirmed. The Court first affirmed the dismissal of the two police departments. Section 1983 liability for local governments depends on state law. Indiana law does not allow municipal police departments to sue or be sued. Next, the Court rejected Sow's argument that the statements made to Fuller by the postal employees were inadmissible hearsay. Since the statements were offered not for their truth but because they constituted part of the facts and circumstances known to Fuller when he decided to arrest Sow, they were properly admitted. Third, the Court addressed Sow's unlawful arrest claim. That claim rests on the existence of probable cause. Here, although Fuller did not call the post office where Sow claimed to have purchased the money order, he received information from several third parties that supported the conclusion that the money order was a forgery. He had no reason to believe that the information he received was anything but truthful. Based on that information, the Court concluded that a reasonable person would believe that a crime had been committed -- probable cause therefore existed. Finally, the Court affirmed with respect to the racial profiling, excessive force, and conspiracy allegations.

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

CLIFFORD v. CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES (November 29, 2010)

John Clifford, III, had a contract with Monsanto to farm seed corn. One of the strains he planted in 2007 was a sensitive to two herbicides. When he noticed weeds in his corn and sought advice from Monsanto, however, he was told that there were no herbicide restrictions. Clifford went to Crop Production Services (“CPS”) for the proper treatment. CPS recommended a blend of the very two herbicides to which this particular strain was sensitive. CPS mixed a custom blend on several occasions and dispensed it into a tank that it had loaned Clifford for the season. Clifford applied the herbicide himself. Within a week, Clifford noticed corn damage. He eventually destroyed all the corn in one field and some of the corn in another. Pat Geneser, a Monsanto employee, inspected the fields and suspected that the damage was caused by glyphosphate, an ingredient in a different Monsanto herbicide. Laboratory tests confirmed trace amounts of glyphosphate in the corn. Clifford brought suit against CPS for negligence. CPS defended on four grounds: a) that the glyphosphate did not cause the harm, b) that if the glyphosphate did cause the harm, it did not come from CPS, c) that if CPS was the source of the glyphosphate and it did cause the harm, CPS did not breach a duty of care, and d) the claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine. Clifford did not disclose Geneser (or anyone else) as an expert witness within the time limitations, CPS moved for summary judgment on all four of its defenses, specifically relying on the absence of expert testimony for the first three. Magistrate Judge Bernthal (C.D. Ill.) concluded that Geneser's testimony was expert testimony and that it was inadmissible because of Clifford's failure to disclose. He granted summary judgment to CPS on the grounds that Clifford could not establish causation or breach of duty. Clifford appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner and Wood and District Judge Adelman affirmed. The Court first concluded that Clifford waived his arguments that Geneser was a lay witness and that, even if he was an expert, his failure to disclose him was harmless. Clifford never even responded to CPS's waiver argument in its briefs. Alternatively, the Court concluded that it would affirm the summary judgment ruling even if it considered Geneser’s testimony. To defeat summary judgment, Clifford had to present sufficient testimony in three areas: that glyphosphate caused the harm, that CPS was the source of the glyphosphate, and that the harm would have been prevented had CPS exercised reasonable care. Even if admitted, Geneser's testimony would not permit a reasonable trier of fact to infer that CPS was the source of the glyphosphate or that it breached a duty of care. In fact, Clifford offered no evidence on a standard of care or its breach. To the extent that Clifford was invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, the Court stated that it was not a proper case for that doctrine. 

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

CYRUS v. TOWN OF MUKWONAGO (November 10, 2010)

Twenty-nine-year-old Nicholas Cyrus lived with his parents in Mukwonago, Wisconsin. Cyrus suffered from bipolar disorder and had occasional delusional episodes. He was known by the local police in his small community for his unusual behavior but was not considered dangerous. On the evening of July 8, 2006, Cyrus left his parents' home wearing only his bathrobe following a dispute with his mother . He remained missing until early the next morning when a town resident reported to the police that an unknown man wearing only a bathrobe was trespassing on his property. Lt. Czarnecki responded to the call. Czarnecki suspected that the "unknown man" was Cyrus. He knew Cyrus and knew that he had been reported missing the night before. There are slight factual disputes regarding what happened next but, generally, Czarnecki unsuccessfully tried to get Cyrus' attention and cooperation. After Cyrus refused a request to talk and moved toward the house, Czarnecki used his Taser on him. Cyrus fell to the ground. He tried to get up but wobbled and fell. Czarnecki used his Taser again and Cyrus rolled down the driveway. By this time, a second officer had arrived at the scene. The two officers tried to handcuff Cyrus but he was lying on his hands. When the officers could not pry his hands loose, Czarnecki used his Taser several more times. The officers finally got him handcuffed but, when they rolled him over, they discovered he was not breathing. Cyrus died later that day. His parents brought a § 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against the officers and the municipality. The plaintiffs offered two experts -- one to testify regarding reasonable force and one (the Medical Examiner, who reformed the autopsy) on the cause of death. The Medical Examiner testified at her deposition that many factors contributed to Cyrus' death, including the stress of the struggle, his fear, his mental condition, his physical position, the pain, and the shock. She testified that she could not state that any particular factor was more significant than another. Judge Randa (E.D. Wis.) excluded the testimony of both experts relating to the cause of death, principally because the Medical Examiner could not isolate a primary cause of Cyrus' death. The court then granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that there were no material disputes of fact and that the Taser use was not excessive force as a matter of law. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Bauer and Sykes and District Judge Simon reversed and remanded. The Court recognized that most of the material facts were undisputed (principally because the victim was dead). However, it rejected the district court's conclusion for two reasons. First, the Court identified several material facts that were in dispute. Czarnecki testified that he used his Taser only five or six times but the Taser's internal register recorded 12 trigger pulls. The parties also disagreed about whether Cyrus walked or ran toward the house. Second, excessive force claims require an analysis of all the circumstances surrounding the use of force. Facts that may not technically be in dispute may be susceptible of different interpretations, making summary judgment appropriate. For example, there were potentially different inferences that a jury could draw from the fact that Cyrus rolled down the driveway. Was it an attempt to escape or merely an involuntary reaction to the shock? Other factors the jury could consider also tended to support the unreasonableness of the force: Cyrus had not committed a serious offense, he did not violently resist the officers, he was not armed, and he suffered from a mental illness. Since a jury could reasonably conclude that Czarnecki's multiple Taser uses constituted unreasonable force, summary judgment was inappropriate. The Court also rejected defendants' alternative position that plaintiffs could not prove causation without the excluded expert testimony. The Court conceded that proof of causation will be more difficult without the Medical Examiner's testimony. However, it found that the record was not totally devoid of evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the force caused Cyrus's death. Expert testimony is not necessary if the facts relied on are such that lay persons can understand them and draw appropriate conclusions from them. Here, Cyrus stopped breathing shortly after receiving the shocks, there is no evidence of a prior injury or condition, the toxicology report showed the absence of drugs, and there is no evidence of an intervening cause. On this record, the Court concluded that a jury could find causation.

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

THE SMART MARKETING GROUP v. PUBLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL (October 28, 2010)

For years, Publications International operated ConsumerGuide.com, a website that provides free automobile price quotes. In turn, Publications transformed the price quote request into sales leads that they then sold to wholesalers, who turned around and sold them to local automobile dealers. In 2003, Publications decided to revise its business model and sell those sales leads directly to dealers. It turned to The Smart Marketing Group for help. They developed two programs – “Approved” and “Leads & Listings.” In Approved, dealers were designated as "approved" dealerships and obtained certain marketing advantages. Leads & Listings involved the actual delivery of specific sales leads to a dealer every month. Smart and Publications entered into a contract in October of 2003. Although the venture failed miserably, each party (not surprisingly) had a different story. According to Publications, Smart botched the Approved program from the beginning – and its failure put pressure to launch Leads & Listings sooner than it was ready. On the other hand, Smart claim that Approved was a big success and the reason some dealers and did not like it was because of Publication's failure to deliver the promised advantages of the program. Even after the October contract, Publications still had not finished the software necessary to deliver the sales leads. Publications decided to terminate its relationship with Smart. It purported to rely on a "termination for cause" provision in the contract. Smart filed suit for breach of contract. The case eventually went to trial. Because of certain pre-trial rulings, the only significant issue at trial was Smart's damages. Smart asked for $8.8 million. Its expert testified about each of the hundreds of dealer contracts and, making certain assumptions and estimations, projected the amount of lost profit. Although the court rendered him unqualified to testify as an expert, it did allow him to explain his calculations. Publication's experts testified that Smart's expert used unreasonable assumptions and estimations. The jury awarded lost profits of $5.6 million. Publications moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 (b) and, alternatively, for a new trial under Rule 59. Judge Gottschall (N.D. Ill.) denied the motions. Publications appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Wood, Evans, and Sykes vacated and remanded. Under Illinois law, the Court said, a plaintiff has the burden of proof in showing lost profits to a reasonable degree of certainty. This can sometimes be difficult even for established businesses, but at least they can rely on past profit history. New businesses have an even more formidable task. The Court concluded that the venture at issue was a new business even though Publications and Smart both had prior related experience. Neither, however, had experience in the web-based sales promotion venture they were attempting to create. The Court reviewed Smart’s evidence. It found the it "sorely lacking," "just guesses," "at best predictions," and "unreliable." Nevertheless, it concluded that the district court did not err in denying the Rule 50 (b) motion -- it found it conceivable that the entire record could support some damages for Smart. It did, however, find the verdict excessive under Rule 59 and remanded for a new trial on damages. Given the weaknesses in Smart's evidence, the Court concluded that the amount of the verdict was outside any reasonable range of just compensation. 

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

JONES v. ASTRUE (October 22, 2010)

Jacklin Jones was injured in a car accident in 2001. Over the course of the next several years, she sought medical treatment as her condition worsened. She complained of lower back pain and numbness in her hands. The objective medical evidence, including the results of multiple MRIs, identified the principal problem as a mild, lower- back disc bulge. Her orthopedic surgeon advised her to discontinue the strong pain medication and instead to lose weight and begin physical therapy. She quit her job in November of 2003 because of her pain. She continued to see the orthopedic surgeon, who continued to tell her to lose weight and get into better condition. Jones sought disability benefits. At her hearing, she testified that she was in substantial pain, that she could not sit or stand for long periods, that her pain medication made her drowsy and nauseous, and that she had trouble holding onto objects. A vocational expert, responding to the ALJ's hypotheticals, testified that there were over 3000 jobs available for a person with Jones' conditions. The ALJ concluded that Jones was not disabled, finding that she could perform simple, routine, sedentary work. In reaching that conclusion, the ALJ found Jones' testimony about the intensity of her pain not credible. Judge Randa (E.D. Wis.) concluded that substantial evidence supported the decision and affirmed. Jones appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Circuit Judge Flaum and District Judge Hibbler affirmed. Jones' principal argument was that the ALJ's credibility determination was flawed. The Court noted that that determination is entitled to significant deference and would be overturned only if "patently wrong." Here, the ALJ credited a significant amount of Jones' testimony, there was substantial objective medical evidence in the record inconsistent with Jones' testimony regarding the extent of her pain, and Jones' treating physicians did not consider her disabled. An ALJ may not ignore subjective statements of pain simply because they are not supported by medical evidence. An ALJ may, however, consider subjective statements of pain as exaggerations when they are inconsistent with objective medical evidence. Here, the Court found that her testimony was inconsistent with objective medical evidence and concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's findings.

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

On June 16, 2011, the Court granted a petition for panel rehearing and vacated this opinion and judgment.

COSTELLO v. GRUNDON (October 18, 2010)

Several senior Comdisco, Inc. employees participated in the company’s shared investment plan (SIP) program. Under the program: a) participants purchased Comdisco stock, b) the purchase was funded exclusively by personal loans, c) the participants executed promissory notes in their personal capacities, d) Comdisco guaranteed the loans, e) the lenders remitted the loan proceeds directly to Comdisco, f) Comdisco held the shares, g) there were several restrictions on the ability to sell the stock, and h) participants delivered a blank stock power to Comdisco. Within two years, the stock price had risen from $34.50 to $53.00. Many participants sold their shares and made a nice profit. Others, however, did not and were still holding the stock when Comdisco went into bankruptcy. The lenders settled with Comdisco on the guaranty obligation. As part of the settlement, the lenders assigned their rights under the notes to the Comdisco Litigation Trustee. The Trustee brought individual actions against the participants. He moved for summary judgment against two of the participants. The court granted the Trustee’s motion, holding that the Trustee made a prima facie case and rejecting several defenses: a) the alleged misrepresentations were expressions of legal opinion and could not support a fraud finding, b) defendants had not shown reliance, c) defendants could not assert a violation of Regulation U as a defense, and d) a negligent misrepresentation defense was not available against the Trustee. The Trustee subsequently moved for summary judgment against the remaining defendants on the same papers. Defendants raised new defenses. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) granted the Trustee’s motion, rejecting the additional defenses. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner, and Tinder affirmed in part and vacated in part. The Court addressed each of the many arguments on appeal in turn. Regulations G and U Violations Defense: Although the Court discussed at length and questioned the district court’s treatment of Comdisco’s or the lenders’ violation of Regulation U or G, it ultimately concluded that it did not need to decide the issue. It concurred with the district court that, even if a violation existed, it did not provide an illegality defense. Relying on Bassler, Blair, and Shearson, the Court noted that the regulations were not meant to protect individual investors and a violation does not make the underlying contract illegal. Section 10(b) Illegality Defense: The Court did disagree with the district court’s treatment of defendants’ defense under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although the Trustee moved for summary judgment based only on the absence of a false statement, the district court granted it on the absence of scienter, raised only in the reply brief. The Court stated that the Trustee had the initial burden of identifying the basis of his request for relief – the defendants were not required to respond to other grounds, even if later raised in the reply. Although the defendants could have responded to the Trustee’s arguments or sought further discovery, they were not required to do so. Furthermore, the Court found that the district court’s requirement of a heightened “strong inference” of scienter was improper. Finally, the Court declined to itself affirm on the alternative grounds raised by the Trustee in its reply below. Section 17(a) Defense: The district court’s ruling with respect to defendants’ defense under § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 was erroneous for the same reason as the ruling on § 10(b). The court improperly ruled that defendants failed to present evidence of scienter when they were under no obligation to do so at this stage of the proceedings. Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Set-Off Defenses: With respect to the fraud and negligent misrepresentation set-off defenses, the district court adopted the ruling and reasoning of it decision on the first summary judgment motion. There is nothing wrong with that, said the Court, except here the defendants presented a new legal argument on the fraud defense and additional evidence with respect on the negligent misrepresentation defense that the court did not consider. The Court concluded that summary judgment in the Trustee’s favor on both was error. Excuse of Non-Performance Defense: Lastly, the Court held that it was error to grant summary judgment on the excuse of non-performance defense. The defendants argued that the lenders’ non-compliance with § 17(a), § 10(b), and Regulation U amounted to a breach of contract and thus excused their performance. The Court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to the §§ 17(a) and 10(b) claims – given that the Court had just vacated the summary judgments on the underlying defenses. With respect to Regulation U, however, the Court agreed that a violation would not excuse performance since the participants were not in the “zone of interest.” The Court remanded for further proceedings.

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

UNITED STATES v. CINERGY CORP. (October 12, 2010)

Cinergy Corp. (and its affiliates) owns several electric power plants in the Midwest. Years ago, the U.S. EPA charged Cinergy with violations of the Clean Air Act at several of its facilities. Specifically, the agency alleged that the company made "major" modifications that resulted in increased nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions without obtaining a permit. In an earlier appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the federal regulation at issue required emissions to be measured on an annual, rather than an hourly, basis. On remand to Judge McKinney (S.D. Ind.), the case was tried. A jury found that four of the alleged modifications were likely to have increased the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide annual emissions and should have been permitted. Cinergy appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Rovner reversed. The Court addressed the verdict with respect to the two pollutants separately. With respect to sulfur dioxide, Indiana's implementation plan in effect at the time of the modifications did use hourly capacity rather than annual emissions to determine the necessity of a permit. This was true even though: the federal statute and regulation defined it otherwise, Indiana had agreed to revise its plan, and Indiana had actually adopted appropriate amendments to its plan -- but it failed to submit the plan for approval for several years. The Court concluded that Cinergy could not be held liable when it complied with the approved Indiana plan. With respect to nitrogen oxide, the parties agree that the annual emissions standard governs. Here, Cinergy attacks the agency's experts and the formula they used to predict those annual emissions. In effect, the expert witnesses testified that an increase in capacity would result in an equal increase in generation and pollutant emissions. The Court concluded that that formula was only appropriate in the case of a baseload generating plant, which is in almost continuous operation. It did not take into consideration the operational differences between baseload, cycling, and peaking plants. The plant at issue is a cycling plant and operated on a regular, although not continuous, schedule. Although there are methods for predicting annual emissions from a cycling plant, the Court concluded that a remand was not necessary. The agency conceded that it could not prove its case if the expert testimony was disallowed.

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

ANNEX BOOKS, INC. v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (October 1, 2010)

The City of Indianapolis passed an ordinance that restricted adult bookstores’ hours of operation. After the district court rejected a challenge to the ordinance, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded (the opinion and intheiropinion). The Court concluded that the evidentiary record did not satisfy intermediate scrutiny. The record evidence it related to the dispersal of adult businesses offering live entertainment -- instead of relating to hours restrictions on businesses not offering live entertainment. On remand, the City offered one additional piece of evidence at a preliminary injunction hearing. It was a study that concluded that Sioux City, Iowa saw a reduction in crime after it dispersed adult businesses. Judge Barker (S.D. Ind.) denied the injunction. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Rovner affirmed. The Court found several flaws in the City's position. First, the study, like the earlier evidence, related to a dispersal ordinance, not a restricted-hours ordinance. Second, the study did not control for any other variables (like bars opening or closing, for example). Third, more police protection for adult business patrons is preferable to closing them. Given the state of the record, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction.

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

IN RE: RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY CORP. (October 1, 2010)

Resource Technology Corporation (RTC) used to be in the business of converting gas emissions from garbage landfills to electricity. It had exclusive gas conversion rights at several Illinois landfills. The business failed and RTC entered bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee entered into a settlement agreement with Chiplease and Scattered, two creditors founded by former RTC officers and directors. Among other things, the agreement provided: a) the trustee agreed to assume several of the landfill contracts and assign them to Chiplease and Scattered, b) Chiplease agreed to pay RTC's operating expenses during the bankruptcy, and c) Chiplease agreed to place $500,000 in escrow as security for the operating expense agreement. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement. The landfill owners objected to the assignment, arguing that § 365's "adequate assurance of future performance" requirement was not met. The principals of Chiplease and Scattered testified that the two companies would lend the requisite $3 million to the trust that had been set up to run the business. Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court rejected the assignment. It concluded that the trust was not capable of performing, that the trust could not require Chiplease and Scattered to lend the money, and that the two companies had financial problems of their own. Judge Kennelly (N.D. Ill.) affirmed. The trust appeals.

Meanwhile, Chiplease never established the $500,000 escrow as required by the agreement. Acting on a complaint by administrative claimants, the bankruptcy court rejected Chiplease's argument that it should be excused because it had already actually paid over $1 million in expenses and ordered it to establish the escrow. Judge Kennelly again affirmed. He also ordered Chiplease to establish the escrow and found it in contempt when it failed to do so. Chiplease appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed on the consolidated appeals. First, with respect to the assignment of the contracts, the Court recited the factors relevant to "adequate assurance”: financial ability, economic climate, whether a guarantee exists, the reputation of the party, and any past history. The bankruptcy court applied the correct standard -- a "more likely than not" requirement. The record showed that performance would require $3 million, that financing was essential, that the trust had no enforceable right to financing, and that the trust was controlled by the same people who controlled RTC when it entered bankruptcy. In addition, the record was practically silent with respect to how Chiplease and Scattered were going to raise the necessary funds. The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion in concluding that the trust failed to carry its burden. With respect to the escrow appeal, the Court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Chiplease to comply with the clear and unambiguous terms of the order. The bankruptcy court was interpreting its own order and is entitled to substantial deference. Finally, with respect to the contempt appeal, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion. There was actually no dispute that Chiplease failed to comply with the court's order. Its only response was an “inability to pay” defense. Particularly in light of evidence that Chiplease presented in support of the landfill contract assumption that it had millions of dollars in assets, Chiplease did not meet its burden of proving that inability.

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

RK CO. v. SEE (September 22, 2010)

Dr. Jackie See founded Harvard Scientific Corporation (HSC) and was very active in its efforts to develop and market a product to treat sexual dysfunction. In 1997, the FDA discovered that HSC had falsified some findings in its new drug application. The FDA began an audit and instructed HSC to cease its clinical studies. Throughout 1997 and 1998, however, HSC continued to make public statements claiming that it was moving forward with its product and that the FDA had approved further clinical trials, when it had not. In mid-1998, RK Co. purchased $500,000 worth of HSC stock. By mid-1999, HSC was bankrupt and RK’s stock was worthless. RK sued HSC, Dr. See, and other HSC employees. After lengthy litigation, Dr. See (the last remaining defendant) and RK consented to a bench trial before a magistrate judge. Magistrate Judge Keys (N.D. Ill.) found for RK on each of the claims. See appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Rovner, and Williams affirmed. The Court first rejected See's argument that RK was not the "real party in interest" because it was not a true legal entity for several reasons: a Rule 17 (a) "real party in interest" objection may be waived, See waived it by not bringing it up until midway through the trial, the fact that he may not have known until trial is not excused since over seven years had elapsed since the complaint's filing, and the only consequence of a more timely objection would have been a substitution of parties. The Court also rejected See's standing arguments. It concluded that RK easily met the minimum requirements for constitutional standing (injury in fact, causation, and redressability) and that See waived the prudential standing argument. Next, the Court held that the magistrate judge did not err in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the claims. See challenged the lower court's decision to admit certain deposition testimony but failed to include in the record the transcript of the proceedings below. The Court dismissed his challenge, being unable to meaningfully review the court's reasoning. Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's award of prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. Prejudgment interest is presumptively available and See failed to specify any particular objections to the fees.

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

MCCANN v. IROQOUIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (September 13, 2010)

Valerie McCann was forced out of her job as director of physicians' services at Iroquois Memorial Hospital in early February of 2006, most likely as part of a reorganization spearheaded by a new CEO. She was not happy. Dr. Leslie Lindberg provided radiology services to the Hospital. He also disapproved of the new administration and feared that the reorganization could put his opportunities at risk as well. McCann paid a visit to Dr. Lindberg at the Hospital later in February on unrelated business. At some point, the conversation turned to the subject of the Hospital. They were both critical of the Hospital, the CEO, and the Trustees. Unbeknownst to them, much of the conversation was recorded on Lindberg's dictation machine. Susan Freed, who oversaw the staff that transcribed dictated notes, learned of the conversation. She had it transcribed and she turned it over to the CEO. The CEO informed the trustees and provided the transcript to one of them. McCann and Lindberg brought suit against Freed, the CEO, the Hospital, and the trustees. They asserted claims under the Federal Wiretap Act as well as state law. Plaintiffs' theory is that Freed, while collecting some papers from Lindberg's office during his conversation with McCann, surreptitiously turned on his dictation machine to record the conversation. Freed denied doing so. Defendants’ theory is that Lindberg forgot to turn the machine off when McCann arrived. Judge Baker (C.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. McCann and Lindberg appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Rovner affirmed with respect to the CEO and the trustees but vacated and remanded with respect to the Hospital and Freed. The Court first addressed defendants' argument that it should not consider the McCann and Lindberg affidavits submitted in response to the summary judgment motion because they contradicted earlier testimony about the date of the conversation. The Court conceded that such a rule exists but cautioned that it does not apply when sufficient reasons are provided for any discrepancies. First of all, the Court thought the date to be immaterial. Second, and more important, the changes are easily explained here. The plaintiffs were originally mistaken about the date of the recorded conversation. Information that became readily available only after the complaint was filed (the timestamp on the recording, cell phone records, and canceled checks) all confirmed that the conversation took place on February 24 -- not February 10, as the plaintiffs originally believed. On the merits, the Court addressed the elements of the Wiretap Act claims. The Act prohibits intentionally "intercepting" a conversation or using or disclosing the contents of an interception, knowing that it was unlawful. The Court concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact when all facts and inferences were drawn in plaintiffs' favor. Even if one side's version of the facts or theory is more believable, summary judgment is not the stage to weigh evidence or make credibility determinations. The claims against Freed and the Hospital can proceed. On the other hand, the record contains no evidence on which to base the CEO’s or the trustees’ liability. The only allegation against the CEO is that he used or disclosed the interception -- but that Act requires that he do so with the knowledge that the interception was unlawful. The record does not support such a conclusion. With respect to the trustees, the only allegation is that one of them knew the interception was illegal -- but not that he used or disclosed the information. Even if true, his knowledge would not amount to a violation of the Act.

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

BODUM USA v. LA CAFETIERE, INC. (September 2, 2010)

In 1991, Bodum Holding purchased the stock of a French company whose principal product was a french-press coffeemaker sold under the name “Chambord.” One of the principal investors in the French company also owned Household, a British company that sold a very similar looking French-press coffeemaker under the “La Cafetiere” name. The parties negotiated over Household's ability to continue selling its coffeemaker after the sale. An early draft of the sales agreement allowed it to sell the La Cafetiere only in England. The later, signed version allowed it to sell the La Cafetiere anywhere in the world except France. In 2006, Household began distributing the La Cafetiere in the United States. Bodum filed suit under state and federal law. Judge Kennelly (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Household. Bodum appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner (concurring) and Wood (concurring) affirmed. The only issue the Court addressed was the meaning of the contract, which was governed by French law. Although FRCP 44.1 allows the use of expert testimony as an aid to the interpretation of foreign law, the Court criticized the practice. Instead, it noted its preference for treatises. Here, the Court relied on the plain language of the contract and its "straightforward" negotiation history in concluding that Household was within its rights to sell its product in the United States. It rejected Bodum's argument that a provision in the French Civil Code required a trial to determine the actual intent of the parties.

Judge Posner agreed with the disposition on the merits but wrote a separate concurrence even more critical than Chief Judge Easterbrook of the practice of using experts to aid the court in foreign law interpretation. In his judgment, courts should rarely rely on expert testimony for the meaning of foreign law. Judge Posner has expressed this view in the past, as well (see his opinion in Sunstar, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co. - and my post).

Judge Wood also agreed with the disposition of the case on the merits and also wrote separately on the subject of Rule 44.1. Judge Wood, however, disagreed with the harsh criticism from her colleagues. In her judgment, experts are frequently necessary to ensure that a district court judge completely understands the nuances of foreign law.

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

MEYERS v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP. (AMTRAK)(August 30, 2010)

Greg Meyers was an Amtrak pipe fitter for years. It was a difficult job -- requiring lifting, twisting, reaching, etc., frequently in confined spaces. Meyers' size (approximately 350 pounds) made the job even more difficult. He started experiencing problems in 2004. He was referred to Dr. Rosseau, a neurosurgeon, who diagnosed him with cervical spondylosis and carpal tunnel syndrome. Rosseau performed carpal tunnel surgery in 2004 and back surgery in 2008. Dr. Tonino, an orthopedic surgeon, operated on his right shoulder in 2007. Meyers brought suit against Amtrak under the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"). He alleged that his injuries were caused by Amtrak's failure to use ordinary care. He relied on the Rosseau and Tonino expert reports and a report by his expert ergonomist. Judge Der-Yeghiayan (N.D. Ill.) granted partial summary judgment to Amtrak on statute of limitations grounds but then struck the reports of both doctors and the ergonomist. Without those reports and testimony, Meyers was unable to establish the elements of the offense. The court granted full summary judgment. Meyers appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Williams, Hamilton affirmed. The Court addressed only the doctor expert issue. It stated that a party offering an expert witness who was retained to provide expert testimony in a case must comply with the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2). Those requirements include disclosing the bases of the expert's opinions and the reasons for them, which Meyers did not. The Court noted that it had never ruled on whether a treating physician is required to comply with those disclosure requirements if the subject of the opinion was not determined at the time of treatment. It concluded that a treating physician should be held to the same disclosure requirement if the physician is offered for testimony regarding the cause of injury and that testimony is based on a conclusion that was not made at the time of treatment. The testimony of Meyers' two doctors fits that definition and was properly excluded. Without those reports, there is no evidence of causation and summary judgment was appropriate.

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

METAVANTE CORP. v. EMIGRANT SAVINGS BANK (August 30, 2010)

Emigrant Savings Bank wanted to expand its operations by launching an on-line bank. In early 2004, Emigrant met with Metavante Corp. The Metavante team presented its system, emphasizing its ability to service a great number of accounts. The Emigrant team knew that certain capabilities were still being developed and that the system lacked some desired traits. Nevertheless, Metavante submitted a proposal referencing existing clients and indicated that its product was in current use. It even identified Capital One as a client reference. The parties negotiated an agreement over the next several months and signed it in August. Under the agreement, Metavante was to provide electronic banking and funds transfer services. Metavante warranted that it would provide those services in a "commercially reasonable manner." Certain services were exempt from the warranty because they contained their own service-level target measurements. Finally, the agreement allowed termination for cause (but with broad cure rights), termination for convenience (for a fee), and termination for convenience and migrating the process to an in-house solution (with a lower termination fee). The program went live in early 2005. It had many flaws – for example, it could not ensure that a customer had sufficient funds to make a particular transfer, it generated error messages, it could not complete online applications, and it failed to process some transactions. On the other hand, Emigrant landed 250,000 new accounts and over $6 billion in deposits. It advertised its bank as "the most successful" bank of its type. Metavante brought suit against Emigrant in September 2005 and gave notice of termination for non-payment. Emigrant objected but made the payments. Several months later, Metavante again gave notice of termination for nonpayment. Emigrant countered that it was terminating for cause for Metavante 's "flawed and inadequate" performance. Metavante amended its complaint to add breach of contract claims. Emigrant counterclaimed for fraud in the inducement. After a bench trial, Judge Stadtmueller (E.D. Wis.) ruled that Metavante had not materially breached the contract but awarded the lower termination fee, finding that Emigrant had migrated the system to an in-house solution. The court also awarded approximately $10 million in attorneys' fees to Metavante. Emigrant appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion, and Tinder affirmed. First, although criticizing the district court for its oral decision and verbatim adoption of many of Metavante 's proposed findings of fact, the Court declined Emigrant's invitation to apply a less deferential standard of review. Second, although criticizing the district court for its inadequate reliability determination with respect to Metavante's expert, its de novo review led it to conclude that the testimony was relevant and reliable. Third, with respect to whether Metavante breached its "commercially reasonable" warranty, the Court concluded that the district court did not err in considering the venture's success as probative evidence. Although a venture's success may not conclusively establish the commercial reasonableness of a party's performance, a court is certainly entitled to consider it. Here, the district court considered it as one factor, albeit a significant one, of many. Fourth, the Court found no clear error in the district court's finding of commercial reasonableness. The Court specifically cited the working relationship between the parties, the fact that both parties understood they were dealing with a new technology, and the fact that Metavante undertook diligent efforts to correct problems when they occurred. Fifth, the Court concluded that the record supported the district court's conclusion that there was no breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Sixth, with respect to Emigrant's fraud claims, the Court found that Emigrant failed to prove reliance or falsity. The Court concluded that it was unreasonable for Emigrant to rely on any of the early "sales pitch" statements, given that these two sophisticated businesses proceeded to negotiate over several months a complex arms-length transaction. The negotiation process and the contract itself made the expectations and capabilities of the parties very clear -- Emigrant may not rely on any earlier inconsistent statements. With respect to falsity, the Court concluded that the district court did not err in its finding that none of the representations at issue amounted to fraud. Finally, the Court turned to the fee award. Several issues were presented related to the fee award. The fee shifting provision in the contract provided that the "prevailing party" is entitled to fees. The Court concluded that Emigrant's partial success in the court's awarding of the $3.8 million lower termination fee instead of the $20.7 million higher termination fee did not make it a prevailing party on that issue and entitle it to fees. The Court also concluded that the submission of redacted bills was sufficient under Medcom. Although a request for fees must be reasonable under a fee shifting provision, the Court noted that market considerations normally render unnecessary line by line scrutiny of individual time entries. The district court acted within its discretion in awarding the fees.

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

HILL v. POTTER (August 30, 2010)

Carla Hill has been an employee of the United States Postal Service in Hazel Crest, Illinois for several years. In the early 2000s, she filed a number of EEO complaints against her supervisors for discrimination. In late 2002, Hill hurt her back in a work related injury and went on "limited duty" status. Limited duty status employees are paid for a full day's work even if no qualifying work is available. Just as her limited duty status period was about to end, Hill claimed that she reinjured her back and reapplied. Her supervisor, Patrick Kavanaugh, wrote a letter to Dale Schultz of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. He communicated his belief that Hill’s injury was not as serious as she claimed. Schultz put Hill on "light duty" status. Light duty status employees are not guaranteed a full day's pay if qualifying work is not available. Hill lost 618 hours of pay while on light duty status -- even while other employees worked in excess of 800 hours of overtime. Hill, who was a letter carrier, also wanted a position as a window clerk. She submitted written applications in 2000 and 2003 and again documented her interest in 2004. Clerk positions became available in 2005, 2006, and 2007. She did not submit written applications at any of those times. On each of those occasions, the Postal Service offered the job to someone who had submitted a written application. Hill brought an action against the Postmaster General, alleging that the lost hours and failure to promote were in retaliation for her protected activities (her EEO complaints). Judge Coar (ND. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendant. Hill appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Kanne, and Evans affirmed. The Court noted that Hill proceeded under the indirect method of proof -- which requires proof of a statutorily protected activity, a materially adverse job action, satisfactory job performance, and treatment worse than a similarly situated employee. The elements at issue here are whether there was an adverse job action (on the reduction in hours claim) and whether Hill was treated differently from similarly situated employees (on the failure to promote claim). The Court first addressed adverse job action. Although a reduction in hours can be an adverse job action, the reduction here came as a result of her light duty status. It does not amount to an adverse job action without other evidence. The Court rejected Hill's claim that Kavanaugh's letter to Schultz somehow imputed a retaliatory motive to Schultz under a "cat's paw" theory. There was no evidence in the record that the letter had any effect on Schultz -- let alone a dispositive one. Therefore, Hill's light duty assignment itself was not an adverse job action. The Court also concluded that sending her home without pay was also not an adverse job action. Although there was evidence in the record that other employees worked overtime, there was no evidence in the record that that overtime work fell within her work performance limitations. Finally, the Court rejected Hill's failure to promote theory of liability. In order to prevail, she had to establish that she properly applied for the promotion. The Postal Service presented evidence that its unofficial policy required an application in writing -- even though that unofficial policy was inconsistent with the written policy and the Postal Service presented no documentary evidence that supported it. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that Hill had not met her burden of establishing pretext. She failed to come forward with any evidence from which an inference could be drawn that the Postal Service evidence was not credible.

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

BERRY v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY (August 23, 2010)

Cynthia Berry was one of only two females among the approximately fifty Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) employees in her work area. Early in 2006, during a morning break, Berry alleges that she was the victim of sexual harassment. The episode included significant, unwelcome physical touching. She reported the episode to a supervisor the following day. According to Berry, her supervisor told her she could lose her job if she pursued charges, told her he was going to protect the CTA, and instructed her to stay away from the break area. The supervisor took statements from the other witnesses, all of whom identified Berry as the aggressor. The official internal investigation came to the same conclusion. Shortly thereafter, Berry went on short-term leave and never returned to her job. She sought injured-on-duty status, which would have qualified her for workers compensation, but alleges that her supervisor refused. Berry brought suit for sex discrimination and hostile work environment. Judge Conlon (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the CTA, concluding that the CTA took prompt and reasonable steps in response to the allegations and that Berry suffered no adverse employment action. Berry appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rover, and Tinder affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The Court agreed with the district court that Berry could not establish an adverse employment action -- so her discrimination claim must fail. Berry asserted a hostile environment claim both with respect to her co-worker (the unwelcome physical contact) and her supervisor (his dismissive comments). The Court first pointed out that Berry's testimony, although self-serving and uncorroborated, can be evidence of a disputed fact if it is based on personal knowledge. With respect to the hostile environment claim against the supervisor, the Court criticized the lower court for discounting Berry's testimony but nonetheless concluded that the dismissive comments were not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile environment. They were infrequent, not threatening, and did not interfere with her employment. The allegations against the co-worker were different. Unwelcome and uninvited contact with intimate body parts is the most severe type of harassment. The Court concluded that Berry's claim could go forward. In addition, the Court concluded that the claim against the CTA based on the co-worker's harassment should go forward. Again, the Court criticized the district court's treatment of Berry's testimony. She contends that her supervisor sabotaged the investigation. A reasonable fact finder could find that the CTA was negligent in responding to her charges, and therefore liable.

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

TRENTADUE v. REDMON (August 18, 2010)

During the 2003-2004 school year, Major Lee Redmon supervised the Junior ROTC program at Pekin High School and Mark Cole was one of his instructors. Cole admittedly had sexual contact with a female student on multiple occasions. The student reported the abuse to her mother on November 5. They immediately reported the incident to school authorities, the school district, and the police. The student's stepfather confronted Redmon. According to the stepfather, Redmon said that "this incident has happened before." After the local newspaper reported the incident, two former students came forward with allegations that they two had been abused by Cole, one in 1996 and one in 2002. The student brought suit against Redmon under § 1983 and against the school district under Title IX. Judge Mihm (C.D. Ill.) dismissed the action against Redmon based on circuit precedent that Title IX precludes a § 1983 action based on supervisor liability. The court later entered summary judgment for the school district on the Title IX claim. The student appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood, and Sykes affirmed as modified. The Court first concluded that the district court was in error in dismissing the § 1983 claim -- but only because of the Supreme Court's intervening holding in Fitzgerald that such a claim is not precluded by Title IX. Since the district court did not address the claim on the merits, a remand would normally be appropriate. However, here the § 1983 claim rested on the same set of facts as the Title IX claim, which the court did fully consider on the merits, so a remand is unnecessary. Liability under either theory requires evidence of knowledge and indifference or facilitation -- on the part of Redmon with respect to the § 1983 claim and on the part of the school district with respect to the Title IX claim. The parties do not dispute that neither the school officials nor Redmon knew of Cole's abuse of the plaintiff. It is also undisputed that no school official knew of the two earlier incidents. The only issue, therefore, is whether Redmon knew of either of the earlier incidents. Plaintiff's entire argument rests on Redmon’s "this incident happened before" statement. But Redmon testified that he did not know of Cole's earlier abuse and explained his reference to an earlier incident as one involving his predecessor, not Cole. On that record, the Court concluded that the plaintiff's interpretation of the remark was mere speculation unsupported by evidence. At the summary judgment stage, plaintiff had the obligation to identify some evidence on that issue.

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

CASTILE v. ASTRUE (August 13, 2010)

Barbara Castile filed her application for Social Security disability benefits in 2002. She asserted that her disability began in 2001 and was a result of the combined effects of fibromyalgia, arthritis, chronic fatigue, obesity, and a host of other maladies. Her application was denied, denied again after reconsideration, denied again after an administrative hearing, and denied again after a supplemental evidentiary hearing. The denial was affirmed by the Appeals Council. Castile filed suit for judicial review and then-District Judge Hamilton (S.D. Ind.) affirmed. Castile appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Kanne affirmed. The Court first addressed Castile's argument that the ALJ erred in not considering her chronic fatigue syndrome as a severe impairment. It found not only the presence of substantial evidence to support that finding, but also noted that any error would have been of no consequence. The ALJ did find other severe impairments and was required to (and did) consider the cumulative effect of all impairments, severe and non-severe. His severity finding with respect to chronic fatigue did not matter. Next, the Court concluded that the Castile did not carry her burden in proving the combination of impairments rendered her disabled because of absenteeism. She failed to present any medical evidence on that issue. Next, the Court noted that the record did not support Castile's claim that the ALJ failed to properly consider her obesity. The Court noted the ALJ's careful consideration and thorough discussion of the evidence. Similarly, the Court concluded that the ALJ's assessment of her credibility was amply supported by the record and the result of careful consideration.

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

ROMANELLI v. SULIENE (August 11, 2010)

Ron Romanelli was incarcerated at the Columbia County Jail. He claims that he was in desperate need of medical attention while incarcerated and that Dr. Suliene and Sgt. Kuhl violated his rights to adequate medical care. The district court granted Romanelli leave to proceed on his § 1983 claim but denied his motion for court-appointed counsel as premature. The court denied a second motion a few months later, concluding that Romanelli was capable of representing himself. After the court denied the defendant's motions for summary judgment, it also denied Romanelli's third request for counsel. The court concluded that the case was not complex, that Romanelli had successfully defeated the summary judgment motions, and that the Romanelli was provided with detailed trial instructions. The case proceeded to trial before Magistrate Judge Crocker. The Magistrate Judge ruled that the defendants were permitted to impeach Romanelli with evidence of prior convictions for issuing worthless checks, bail jumping, and sexual assault -- he did not permit impeachment with evidence of Romanelli's convictions for resisting/obstructing an officer and failure to report as a sex offender. A jury concluded that Romanelli did not suffer from a serious medical condition. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Romanelli appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first noted the absence of any right to counsel in a civil case but added that a district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to appoint counsel. In exercising that discretion, the court should examine whether the plaintiff is indigent, whether the plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to retain counsel, whether the case is complex, and whether the plaintiff is capable of representing himself. The Court concluded that the district court applied that proper standard and did not abuse its discretion in denying court-appointed counsel to Romanelli. The court acted within its discretion in denying a) the first motion -- it was too early for the court to make the necessary determinations, b) the second motion -- exceptional circumstances were absent and the court made a threshold determination that Romanelli was capable of representing himself in a relatively simple case, and c) the third motion -- Romanelli had proven himself capable of his own representation. The Court added that Romanelli had a very weak case on the facts and suffered no obvious prejudice due to the lack of professional representation. With respect to the evidence of prior convictions, the Court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Court relied on the facts that almost all of the evidence relating to Romanelli's prior convictions was brought into the record by Romanelli himself and that the court included limiting instructions to the jury. Finally, the Court also noted that any evidentiary error would have been harmless given Romanelli's lack of credibility and the dearth of corroborating evidence.

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

CASANOVA v. AMERICAN AIRLINES (August 5, 2010)

Bruce Casanova, an American Airlines baggage handler, reported an on-the-job injury to his supervisor toward the end of his shift on a Monday. The injury, however, is alleged to have occurred the preceding Friday. His supervisor sent him to the medical center and reported his injury to the firm that handles workers compensation claims for the airline. The medical staff instructed Casanova not to use his arm pending further examination. His supervisor was suspicious: Casanova claimed to be in too much pain to debrief her on the injury but had waited 72 hours to even report it and had worked most of a full shift in the meantime. She also noticed him using his left hand, apparently without pain. The airline decided to put him under surveillance. He was observed using his left arm frequently. American demanded an "Article 29F" hearing, an employer inquiry proceeding pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. Casanova failed to cooperate at the hearing, answering "I don't recall" most questions. He did affirmatively deny any use of his left arm after the injury. Casanova also refused to provide a written explanation of the injury. American fired Casanova for lying and insubordination. Casanova brought suit, claiming that his discharge was in retaliation for his claim for workers' compensation benefits. At trial, a jury awarded over $1 million (mostly punitive damages). Judge Guzmán (N.D. Ill.) denied American's post trial motions. American appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Sykes reversed. The Court concluded that the district court erred in finding that Casanova prevailed because the injury (and his implied future claim for workers' compensation benefits) was a but-for cause of the later discharge. The injury claim was, in fact, a necessary condition of Casanova's discharge -- but it was not a sufficient condition. The record is clear that American fired Casanova for his lying and insubordination. Casanova did not even try to offer evidence suggesting that American's reason was pretextual. Instead, he attacked American’s use of the Article 29F procedure. Without any material dispute on an absence of pretext, America was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

LEONARD v. EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY (May 26, 2010)

For almost 20 years, Robert Leonard worked in a janitorial position at Eastern Illinois University. Leonard was of Native American descent and was very outspoken and active on those issues. In particular, Leonard was very critical of the use by the University of Illinois (since discontinued) of a Native American mascot called “Chief Illiniwek.” In March 2005, Leonard applied for a promotion. He interviewed before a panel of six supervisors, two of whom wore shirts picturing Chief Illiniwek. Although the University of Illinois basketball team was scheduled to play a collegiate championship game that very night, Leonard was offended by the shirts and believed them to be a statement regarding Leonard's criticism of the mascot. Neither Leonard nor any other applicant was promoted as a result of the March 2005 interviews. In April, Leonard complained to the school's Office of Civil Rights. As a result of his complaint, the supervisors were requested not to wear clothing depicting the Chief Illiniwek when dealing with Leonard. In October of 2005, Leonard and seven others applied for another promotion. They all interviewed before the same six supervisors without incident. The University promoted the three applicants who scored the highest -- Leonard was seventh of the eight. Leonard brought suit against the University under Title VII. He alleged that the University failed to promote him in retaliation for his earlier complaint. Judge McCuskey (C.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the University. Leonard appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Evans, and Tinder affirmed. Leonard had proceeded in the trial court under the direct method of proof, which requires him to prove, among other things, a causal connection between a protected activity and an adverse job action. The Court found no such evidence. There was no evidence that the supervisors reacted negatively to his complaint or that the results of the scoring showed any bias. All six supervisors scored Leonard in the bottom half of the candidates. A causal link cannot be inferred from "suspicious timing" because of the six-month gap between the complaint and the interviews. The Court also rejected Leonard's attempt to use 10-year-old statements of allegedly anti-Native American bias to support an inference of retaliation.

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

WALLACE v. MCGLOTHAN (MAY 26, 2010)

Tracey Wallace had trouble reading small print and driving at night. She decided to have surgery so that she would not need to wear contacts or glasses. She went to Dr. McGlothan for LASIK surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery was not successful. A complication arose first during the procedure on her right eye. Notwithstanding the complication, Dr. McGlothan nevertheless performed the same procedure on her left eye -- with the same result. Wallace sought treatment from Drs. Connor and Price. They treated her for years, with some improvement. She continues, however, to suffer the effects of the unsuccessful surgery. The Indiana Medical Review Panel concluded that McGlothan was negligent but only with respect to the left eye. Wallace and her husband brought suit. Judge McKinney (S.D. Ind.) granted partial summary judgment. He relied on the Panel’s opinion in finding that McGlothan violated the standard of care with respect to her left eye but was not liable for any damage to her right. A jury trial was held on damages. The defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence, arguing that Wallace failed to prove the permanence of the injury. After a jury verdict of approximately $700,000, McGlothan renewed his motion with respect to the permanence of the injury and also addressed an allegedly undisclosed pre-existing condition. The court denied the motion. McGlothan appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Tinder affirmed. First, the Court rejected Wallace's argument that McGlothan waived the pre-existing condition argument by failing to include it in his pre-verdict motion. The Court agreed that McGlothan improperly included in his Rule 50 (b) motion an argument that was not included in his pre-verdict motion. Although the plaintiffs could have objected, they did not. They therefore waived their waiver argument. The Court then proceeded to uphold the decision on the merits. First, it concluded that the objections to the expert testimony were forfeited. Second, it found the testimony of the experts sufficient for the jury to conclude that the damage was permanent. Third, it concluded that the testimony of the experts was sufficient for the jury to find a causal link between the surgery and Wallace's condition, unrelated to a pre-existing condition. Fourth, it concluded that the evidence linking the condition to the left eye as opposed to the right eye, although sparse, was sufficient. Finally, the Court rejected defendant's complaints about discovery abuse and perjury.

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

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. V. ALLEN (April 7, 2010)

American Honda Motor Co. ("Honda") manufactures motorcycles. One such motorcycle, the Gold Wing GL1800, is the subject of a class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs, purchasers of the GL1800, allege that the motorcycle has a design defect. The defect, they allege, results in excessive shaking of the steering assembly. The plaintiffs moved for class certification. They relied on a report prepared by Mark Ezra for support for their allegation of the predominance of common issues. In his report, Ezra had developed a standard for the dissipation of steering oscillation in motorcycles. He tested one GL 1800 and concluded that it did not meet this standard. Honda argued that the report did not meet the Daubert standard. The district court expressed its concern that the standard was not supported by empirical evidence and was not generally accepted by the engineering community and that his sample size of one was inadequate. Nevertheless, it refused to strike the report and granted the motion for class certification. Honda petitioned for leave to appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Evans, and Tinder granted the petition, vacated the denial of the motion to strike and the order certifying a class, and remanded. The Court acknowledged that it had not yet considered the specific question of whether a Daubert challenge must be resolved prior to class certification. It has, however, held that a district court must make all legal and factual determinations necessary to ensure that class requirements are met. The Court thus held that a district court must conclusively resolve challenges to an expert report if the report is critical to class certification. Here, the district court started the correct analysis but never actually decided the question. Instead, it simply decided not to exclude the entire report at what it referred to as the "early stage of the proceedings." The district court abused its discretion in doing so. In fact, the Court went on to conclude that the Ezra report should have been excluded under a Daubert analysis. Applying the Daubert factors, the Court noted the lack of evidence that the standard has been generally accepted or that any tests have been performed to support it. The Court also stated that the sample size of one would rarely be sufficient to extrapolate its results to an entire fleet of motorcycles. Without the report, the plaintiffs cannot meet the predomination requirement of class certification.

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

BROWN v. CITY OF CHICAGO (March 30, 2010)

Chicago police officers Blackman and Long were on a plain-clothes detail in a Chicago neighborhood when they observed what they believed was an illegal drug transaction. During their pursuit of the suspects, Blackman came across Arthur Brown. According to Blackman, Brown was holding a gun. When he failed to follow the officer's orders to drop it, Blackman shot him several times. According to Brown and another witness, he did not have a gun. Instead, Brown claims that Blackman shot him in the back and then planted a gun in his hand. Brown was charged and convicted of several counts of aggravated assault, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of a weapon. His conviction was affirmed. Nevertheless, Brown brought a § 1983 complaint against Blackman, alleging that Blackman's conduct amounted to the excessive use of force in violation of the Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment to Blackman, concluding that the complaint was barred by collateral estoppel. Brown appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Tinder affirmed. The Court noted that Brown conceded that the elements of collateral estoppel existed in the case. Instead, he argued that two exceptions to the rule applied: that he was denied a fair hearing and that new evidence made the rule’s application unfair. The Court agreed that Brown's exceptions to the application of collateral estoppel were recognized in Illinois. However, the Court rejected their application in this case. First, with respect to the fair hearing exception, the Court concluded that the two evidentiary issue rulings at his criminal trial did not deny Brown a fair hearing. The third ground on which he based his “fair hearing” argument was the accusation by the prosecutor that Brown and his attorney made up a theory of conspiracy by police officers in order to “cash in” in a civil action against the City. The state appellate court found the remarks improper but did not reverse the conviction. Likewise, the Court found that the remarks, though improper, did not amount to the deprivation of a fair hearing. Second, with respect to the new evidence exception, the Court concluded that any discrepancy between a witness’ testimony in Brown's criminal trial and his deposition testimony in the § 1983 case was not significant enough to create the type of injustice that would bar the application of collateral estoppel.

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

DEKOVEN v. PLAZA ASSOCIATES (March 17, 2010)

Plaza Associates is a well-known debt collection agency. It sent two collection letters to DeKoven stating that it had the authority to offer a lump-sum settlement but that the offer would only be "valid for a period of thirty-five (35) days." In a different letter to a plaintiff in a related suit, Plaza Associates included the DeKoven statement and also stated that a recipient who disputed the validity of the debt with "satisfactory proof" should provide that information to Plaza. The plaintiffs filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. They complained about the "35 day" language and the "satisfactory proof" language. The former, they complain, might be construed by some as a final offer -- when in fact it is not. The latter, they complain, might be construed by some that a recipient must have "proof" to dispute the validity of the debt. Both plaintiffs retained the same survey expert. The expert conducted a survey but the judges in both cases considered it inadmissible. In both cases, the court below entered summary judgment for Plaza Associates. In both cases, the plaintiff appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Williams affirmed. The Court reviewed the circumstances of the survey. The expert surveyed 160 people in a shopping mall near Chicago. One half of the people were given the letter with both challenged clauses -- the others (the “control group”) were shown a letter with neither clause. The survey respondents were then asked a series of questions about the letters. The Court agreed with the district court in finding numerous flaws in the survey: the composition of the response group, the content of the original oral questions, and the content of the "control group" letter, among others. The Court noted that many Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases fail because of survey flaws. It suggested that district courts consider exercising their authority to use a court-appointed expert in FDCPA cases.

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

WHITLOCK v. BROWN (February 24, 2010)

The Whitlocks were camping with their daughter at the Indiana Dunes State Park in July of 2005. They came across some personal property at what appeared to be a deserted camp site. They put the items in their vehicle and told a neighboring camper that they would turn it in to park rangers. Instead of turning it in immediately, however, they left the park and went shopping. Upon their return, they left a voicemail for the property owner (having obtained his number from information found in the property) advising him that they had his property and were going to leave it with the park ranger. The owner of the property had already reported it missing and park authorities were investigating. When the Whitlocks eventually turned in the property, they were accused of theft. The investigation confirmed the Whitlocks' explanation. State investigator Brown prepared a case report and an "Affidavit for Probable Clause." He sent the affidavit to the local county prosecutor's office, and there is a dispute over whether he attached his case report to it. The Whitlocks were charged with conversion and an arrest warrant was issued. When they were stopped for a traffic violation a month later, they were arrested and held in jail for four days before the prosecutor dropped the charges. The Whitlocks sued Brown under § 1983, specifically alleging that he withheld their explanation for why they held the property for so long from his case report or application for a warrant. The district court concluded that Brown did violate their Fourth Amendment rights by withholding the exculpatory information but also concluded that he was entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause to arrest the Whitlocks existed. The Whitlocks appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Posner and Sykes and District Judge Dow affirmed. Qualified immunity, stated the Court, involves two inquiries: whether there is a constitutional violation and whether a reasonable officer, considering clearly established law, would have known his actions were unconstitutional. Here, the claim is that Brown intentionally or recklessly withheld exculpatory information from the prosecutor, which could overcome the general presumption of the validity of the warrant. The information omitted, however, must be material to the existence of probable cause. The Court first addressed the alleged withholding of the case report itself. The district court had concluded that Brown withheld the report, inferring so from its absence from the prosecutor's file. The Court disagreed. Brown testified that he had submitted the case report. Although self-serving, the testimony was not speculation and was based on Brown's personal knowledge. In contrast, the Whitlocks presented no evidence or reasonable inference that the report was not sent. Although therefore concluding that the report itself was not withheld, the Court also considered an omission in the report -- Brown's failure to include the Whitlock's innocent explanation for why they did not turn in the property immediately. The Court turned to the materiality of that missing information. The statute upon which the warrant was based prohibits "unauthorized control over property" of another. It does not require an intent to permanently deprive. Although the Court hypothesized a situation in which the explanation could be material under a theory of implied consent from the owner of lost property, it found no such theory recognized under Indiana law. The Court concluded that a reasonable officer would not have known if the innocent explanation was material to probable cause and that Brown was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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

TURNER v. THE SALOON (February 8, 2010)

Paul Turner was a waiter at The Saloon restaurant. After working there for several years, Turner and one of his supervisors carried on a sexual relationship that lasted for about nine months. According to Turner, the supervisor retaliated against him after she ended the relationship. He alleges that she changed his table assignments, disciplined him without cause, and sexually harassed him on a number of specific occasions. Turner also alleges that he was discriminated against because of his psoriasis. He wears no underwear as a result of that condition and therefore occasionally exposes himself while changing clothes. He claims that his supervisors failed to accommodate his condition. Instead, he was forced to change in a “vile” men’s room. One day, in the middle of a shift and with no other waiters on duty, Turner left the restaurant to run an errand. When he returned, he was fired. Turner sued the restaurant and several managers for gender and disability discrimination under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also made a claim for overtime. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Turner appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner, and Sykes reversed and remanded in part in affirmed in part. The Court first addressed the Title VII sexual harassment claim. It concluded that the district court erred in not considering most of the alleged acts of harassment because they occurred outside the limitations period. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Morgan, whether an alleged act of harassment is considered by a court depends on whether the claim is for employment discrimination or for hostile work environment. In an employment discrimination claim, discrete acts outside the limitations period should not be considered. However, in a hostile work environment claim, all acts can be considered as long as one act contributing to the hostile environment took place during the limitations period. Taking all the alleged acts into account, the Court had little difficulty in finding that they were sufficient to survive summary judgment. The Court noted the presence of at least five discrete acts, three of which were aggressively physical. Since the district court did not reach the issue of employer liability, the Court left the issue for remand. The court next addressed Turner's claim that his termination was in retaliation for his complaints about the harassment. The Court concluded that Turner was unable to establish a prima facie case under either the direct or indirect method. It noted a series of at least ten serious reprimands in the eight or nine months preceding his termination as well as the fact that he left his job in the middle of the shift. The serious performance problems as well as the passage of time since his harassment complaint belie a causal connection between the complaint and his termination. The Court summarily rejected Turner's ADA discrimination claim -- his psoriasis is not a disability under the Act since it does not limit any major life activity. The fact that he is not disabled does not preclude his ADA retaliation claim. Since he did raise such a claim with his employer, his employer is not allowed to retaliate. He does not prevail on that claim, however, for the same reasons he could not prevail on his Title VII retaliation claim. Finally, the Court rejected Turner's wage claims as wholly unsupported by the evidence presented.

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

GAYTON v. MCCOY (January 28, 2010)

India Taylor had a life-threatening heart condition. She took six different medications to treat the condition. The six drugs were not the only drugs Taylor took – she was also a heroin user. Taylor was arrested on four different occasions in the summer of 2003. As a result, personnel at the Peoria County Jail became very familiar with her condition and her medications. Both her medical history and her prescriptions became part of her file. She was arrested again in October. Because she complained of chest pain, she was taken for a medical examination. Nurse Radcliffe knew her history and medications and asked her brother to bring her medications to the jail. She also made a notation that Taylor should see the doctor the next day if her medications did not arrive. The next day, Taylor complained of nausea on multiple occasions. By mid-afternoon, she was vomiting violently. The guards called the nurse, and even collected her vomit in a bag. Nurse Hibbert suspected that Taylor was faking her symptoms in order to get drugs and refused to see her. Although her name was on the list to see the doctor the next day, she died during the night. Lester Gayton, her brother and administrator of her estate, brought a wrongful death action pursuant to §1983. He named the sheriff, the jail superintendent, the doctor, three nurses, and the outsourced health care provider at the jail. The district court excluded the testimony of the plaintiff's medical expert and granted summary judgment to the defendants. Gayton appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum and Williams and District Judge Lawrence affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court started with the district court’s exclusion of the medical expert, Dr. Weinstein. First, the Court concluded that the lower court erred in finding Weinstein unqualified to opine on the cause of death. In fact, Weinstein did not testify as to cause of death -- he simply adopted the other experts' conclusion that Taylor died of nonspecific heart failure. Next, the Court stated that the fact that Weinstein was not a cardiologist did not make him unqualified. Finally, with respect to the reliability of his specific conclusions, the Court considered each conclusion individually: a) the lower court properly barred the conclusion that Taylor might have lived had she been given her medication since he gave no basis for his opinion and claims no specific expertise regarding the medication, b) the court improperly barred his testimony that the combination of her vomiting and certain medications might have contributed to her heart failure since that opinion requires no specialized expertise, and c) although the court did not address it, Weinstein is an expert in prison healthcare and is qualified to give his opinion that prison medical personnel fell short of accepted standards of medical care.

The Court next addressed summary judgment. A cause of action for failure to provide adequate medical care requires a showing of a serious medical condition, deliberate indifference, and causation. The deliberate indifference element itself requires knowledge of the health risk and a disregarding of that risk. Given Taylor's serious heart condition, her complaints of chest pain and nausea, and her excessive vomiting, the Court had little difficulty in finding enough evidence of a serious medical condition to overcome summary judgment. On the issue of deliberate indifference, the Court analyzed each defendant separately: a) summary judgment was proper for the sheriff, the doctor, and the superintendent since they had no contact with Taylor and did not know of her request for medical attention, b) summary judgment was proper for the outsourced medical care organization since the plaintiff conceded that the medical policies were sufficient, thus precluding Monell liability, c) summary judgment was proper for two of the three nurses in that one acted reasonably and the other, although negligent, was not deliberately indifferent, and d) summary judgment in Nurse Hibbert’s favor was improper since a jury could find that her refusal to see Taylor despite strong indications that she was in need of medical treatment amounted to deliberate indifference. Finally, the Court also found sufficient evidence in the record on which a jury could find proximate causation between Nurse Hibbert’s conduct and a delay in treatment that exacerbated Taylor’s suffering.

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

MILAM v. DOMINICK'S FINER FOODS (December 7, 2009)

Ahmad Milam is one of several African-American produce clerks at a Chicago Dominick's grocery store. Each week, Dominick's posts the produce clerks’ schedule of hours for the upcoming week. A more-senior produce clerk is allowed to "claim" the hours of a less-senior clerk. Milam and five other African-American produce clerks filed suit against Dominick's, claiming that it was guilty of race discrimination when it classified two more junior white women as produce clerks but did not include them on the schedule. The court granted summary judgment to Dominick's on the ground that plaintiffs had no evidence of damages. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne and Rovner affirmed. The Court was quite critical of the district court's handling of the case. It noted that one of the women at issue was actually never a produce clerk. Although she had been offered and accepted a promotion to produce clerk, she changed her mind and never was scheduled to work as one. Dominick's presented evidence years ago that the failure to list the second woman on the produce clerk schedule was an innocent mistake. Plaintiffs never challenged the evidence as pretextual. The court should have granted summary judgment to Dominick's. With respect to the eventual order of the district court, the Court agreed that the plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence of either actual or probabilistic injury. The Court conceded that the plaintiffs' probabilistic injury theory was a proper damages theory. It requires, however, evidence of the expected benefit – which was never presented. In the end, the Court termed the case frivolous.

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

SENSKE v. SYBASE, INC. (December 3, 2009)

Robert Senske joined Sybase as a Strategic Account Manager in 2002. He was 55 years old at the time. For two years, Senske's performance was marginal at best in most areas. He did outperform his financial goal in 2004, but only because he got partial credit for two large deals on which he had little input or contribution. He was particularly criticized for excessive tardiness and incomplete paperwork completion. In early 2005, he was put on a performance improvement plan. He was told to improve his business skills, to be more responsive, and to complete his paperwork in a timely manner. Instead of showing improvement, Senske's performance deteriorated during the performance improvement period -- and he was fired. Senske sued Sybase under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging that he was fired as a result of his age. The district court granted summary judgment to Sybase. Senske appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne and Evans affirmed. Instead of enumerating the elements of a prima facie case under the indirect method, the Court proceeded directly to address the question of pretext. If Senske is unable to show that Sybase's stated reasons for his termination are pretextual, he also would not be able to establish that he was meeting his employer's legitimate expectations. The Court reviewed, in some detail, the evidence in the record of Senske's history of performance and Sybase's stated reasons for his termination. The Court concluded that Senske failed to present any evidence that the reasons given by Sybase for his termination were not sincere.

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

THOMAS v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (December 1, 2009)

Norman Smith was arrested by the Chicago police on April 23, 2004. He was delivered to the Cook County Jail on April 24, where he was scheduled to remain until his trial date. An intake medical examination showed elevated blood pressure but no other medical problems. Smith showed symptoms of something more serious, however, from that first day. He was dizzy and vomiting. His symptoms became more serious over the next several days. Despite repeated requests by Smith and by other detainees on his behalf for medical assistance, he received none. On April 30, his cellmate discovered Smith convulsing on the floor. The cellmate reported it immediately to the officer on duty. There was a significant delay before Smith received any treatment. He died that morning of pneumococcal meningitis. His mother, Marlita Thomas, brought a § 1983 case against a number of individual correctional officers, the Cook County Sheriff and Cook County. A jury awarded Thomas $4,450,000 against the County, the Sheriff and three correctional officers. The jury then allocated the damages amongst the defendants. The court denied the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood and Williams affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The Court first addressed the verdict against the individual officers. In order to prevail, the Court stated that a plaintiff must demonstrate that a medical condition is objectively serious, that the defendant has subjective knowledge of the health risk and the defendant disregarded the risk. The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record to allow a jury to conclude that the individual officers knew about Smith's health risk and ignored it. Thus, the verdict is affirmed. The Court next addressed the verdict against the County. The County can be liable only if the unconstitutional act is the result of an official policy or a widespread practice or custom or is caused by an official with policy-making authority. The Court refused to adopt a bright-line test on how widespread a policy need be, but noted that it must be more than a random event. The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence of a widespread policy: a failure to review medical requests, a failure to collect medical requests, keeping request forms in a locked box, etc. Thus, the verdict against the County was affirmed. The Court next addressed the verdict against the Sheriff. The basis for imposing liability under Monell against the Sheriff was his policy of severely understaffing the jail. In order to sustain the verdict, there must be a causal link between the policy and the unconstitutional act. Here, the individual officers were found liable based on their deliberate indifference to Smith's medical needs. The Court found no relationship between the officers' conduct and the understaffing. The Court concluded that the understaffing theory was too remote to support the verdict. Thus, the Court reversed for entry of judgment in the Sheriff's favor. After rejecting several evidentiary arguments of the defendants, the Court addressed the verdict. On the verdict form, the jury entered $150,000 against the officers, $3 million against the County, and $1 million against the Sheriff. This allocation was improper, in that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for one indivisible injury. It raised the question of whether the total damages is the sum of all of the damage awards, or the highest single assessment. The Court presumed that the jury followed instructions to not award duplicate damages and concluded that adding the damage awards would be proper. Under that analysis, the award against the Sheriff ($1 million) remains as part of the verdict against the County and individual officers, notwithstanding the reversal of the verdict against the Sheriff. Finally, the Court rejected the defendants' argument that the award was excessive.

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

MUSCH v. DOMTAR INDUSTRIES (November 25, 2009)

Alan Musch is an hourly maintenance employee at one of Domtar's paper mills in Wisconsin. Because he is regularly exposed to hazardous chemicals during a shift, he must shower and change his clothes before leaving the mill. He is not compensated for that time. He brings an action on behalf of himself and the other maintenance employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin state law for overtime compensation. The court entered summary judgment for Domtar. The class appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne and Evans affirmed. The FLSA does require an employer to pay its employees for all their work. Although an employer is generally not required to compensate an employee for activities (such as cleaning up) at the end of the workday, compensation may be required if the activity is an integral part of the employment. The Court agreed with the district court's findings that the class failed to establish that chemical exposure was so pervasive that cleanup was required at the end of each day. The Court also noted that Domtar had a policy requiring maintenance employees to shower and change clothes whenever they were exposed to hazardous chemicals, even if not at the end of their shift. The Court concluded that the activities were non-compensable.

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

FORD v. MINTEQ SHAPES AND SERVICES (November 24, 2009)

Dennis Ford has been employed as a forklift operator for Minteq for many years. Throughout those years, he has been the only African-American employee at his facility. In 2007, Ford brought a race discrimination claim against Minteq. He complained that a coworker referred to him as "black man," that a supervisor called him a guerrilla, that he was not allowed to bring his grandchildren to a holiday party and that he was retaliated against for seeking outside medical attention for an on-the-job injury. The district court granted summary judgment to Minteq. Ford appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer and Wood affirmed. The Court noted that Ford's racial harassment claim required proof of an abusive work environment. The factors to be considered in determining whether the employer's conduct is severe and pervasive are the frequency and severity of the conduct, whether it is physically threatening and whether it interferes with the complainant's job. The Court concluded that Ford's complaints, individually and in the aggregate, did not rise to that level. Specifically with respect to the "black man" comments, the fact that Ford complained only once and never followed up with his employer on that complaint would not allow a reasonable juror to find that it rose to the level of harassment. The Court also concluded that Ford failed to present sufficient evidence on his disparate pay and retaliation claims to reach a jury.

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

WALSH v. CHEZ (October 21, 2009)

Jason Walsh was diagnosed with autism early in his life. His parents took him to Dr. Michael Chez for treatment. Chez prescribed a daily dosage of 50 mg of prednisone. One side-effect of prednisone is its negative impact on the body's ability to fight infection. A short time after the beginning of his prednisone treatment, Jason developed pneumonia. Dr. Chez reduced the prednisone treatment from 50 mg per day to 50 mg twice a week. A few months later, Jason died. Jason's parents brought a medical malpractice case against Dr. Chez. The Walshes submitted expert reports supporting their theory that the abrupt dosage reduction was the cause of their son's death. The district court excluded the reports on the ground that they failed to articulate a standard of care. The court dismissed the case. The Walshes appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum and Wood reversed and remanded. The Court focused on the Rule 26 duty to disclose information regarding an expert's testimony. The purpose of the rule is to allow an opposing party a reasonable opportunity to address the expert's opinion. Examining the reports of the two experts, the Court concluded that each expressed an opinion that the conduct of Dr. Chez was not consistent with the standard of care. Dr. Chez was on notice of the Walshes' theory of malpractice. The fact that there may have been numerous ways of properly weaning Jason from the prednisone does not affect the experts' opinions that Dr. Chez' approach fell below the standard of care.

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

MCGOWAN v. DEERE & CO. (September 11, 2009)

William McGowan, an African-American male, had over 20 years of employment at Deere & Company when he injured his back. He eventually underwent surgery. He returned to work with a 25-pound weight restriction imposed by the company doctor. His surgeon and physical therapist both cleared him, on separate occasions, to return to work with less onerous restrictions. The weight restriction prevented him from returning to his prior job and also disqualified him from two other positions. McGowan brought an action under Title VII and § 1981, complaining of Deere's refusal to reinstate him and refusal to select him for the other positions. The district court granted summary judgment to Deere. McGowan appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum and Williams and District Judge Lawrence affirmed. The Court first noted that the elements and proof necessary for Title VII and § 1981 are essentially identical. McGowan proceeded under the indirect approach, in which he had to prove, among other things, that other persons similarly situated but not in his protected class were treated more favorably. The similarly situated test, said the Court, is a flexible test. The purpose is to identify a sufficient number of common factors between the claimant and others in order that a meaningful comparison can be made. The critical comparators here are job duties and weight restrictions. The court concluded that McGowan did not provide sufficient evidentiary basis for either job duties or weight restrictions on the employees that the proffered as similarly situated. He therefore failed to make a prima facie case. Alternatively, the Court concluded that McGowan failed to produce any evidence that Deere's stated reasons for its decisions were discriminatory.

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

CICIORA v. CCAA, INC. (September 4, 2009)

Lela Ciciora went to Burrito Jalisco one winter day in Chicago to pick up her lunch. She parked in the lot and used the sidewalk to get to the store. It had snowed earlier but the snow had been removed from the sidewalk. A store employee had also salted the sidewalk that morning. Nevertheless, Ciciora slipped on a small patch of ice and fractured her ankle. She brought a personal injury lawsuit against the owner of the premises and CCAA, who ran the restaurant. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Ciciora appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner and Evans affirmed. The Court started with the general rule that a property owner has no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice. A duty may exist, however, if one is contractually obligated to do so or if one voluntarily does so. Here, the restaurant owner voluntarily cleared and salted the sidewalk regularly. The Court noted that a volunteer could be liable if her actions resulted in an unnatural accumulation or increased an existing hazard in some other manner. There was simply no evidence presented, however, of an unnatural accumulation or of an aggravation of existing hazard. Ciciora relied on mere speculation. The district court properly granted summary judgment. Similarly, the court concluded that Ciciora failed to present any evidence that the owner of the premises failed to exercise reasonable care in its obligation to maintain the sidewalks.

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

INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTION SPECIALISTS v. SCHWING AMERICA, INC. (SEPTEMBER 2, 2009)

North Shore Sanitary District (NSSD) entered into a contract with Voest-Alpine Industries to build a wastewater treatment plant. Voest-Alpine in turn contracted with Schwing America to supply and install five silos and associated equipment. Schwing in turn agreed to pay International Production Specialists (IPS) almost $700,000 to fabricate and install the five silos. The original schedule provided that the silos were to be delivered by December of 2001, approximately 4 months after Schwing and IPS entered into their agreement. NSSD suspended work on the project prior to the delivery dates. Schwing instructed IPS to continue its fabrication effort with respect to the two silos with the earliest installation dates but to cease any work on the site. NSSD restarted the project two years later -- but changed the physical location of the plant. The change in location resulted in a dispute between Schwing and IPS. In fact, IPS advised Schwing that it would not complete the project. After further negotiations, the project was back on. Schwing advised IPS of a new schedule requiring installation of the first two silos in August of 2004 and the other three in December of 2004. Although IPS completed the installation of the first two silos almost on time, the other three became a problem. When the silos were still not delivered by February of 2005, Schwing terminated the contract and completed the work through other subcontractors at significant cost. IPS sued for breach of contract -- Schwing countersued. After a trial, the court concluded that Schwing both did not breach and was justified in terminating the contract. The court awarded damages of almost $500,000. IPS appeals.

In their opinion (PDF), Judges Flaum, Rovner and Williams affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court noted that Schwing terminated the contract because of IPS's failure to satisfactorily complete the work within a specified time. If IPS's performance within a particular time was required and its failure destroyed an essential element of the contract, it would be a material breach. Under Wisconsin law, a material breach would release Schwing from its continuing performance. The Court looked to the contract. It concluded that the original agreement contained an expectation for performance within a particular time. Of course, the time frame was eliminated when NSSD put the project on hold. After the project started back up, a layout schedule contained expectations for completing the project. Considering the complexity of the project and the number of subcontractors, the Court concluded that the time frames in the layout schedule were reasonable contractual expectations. Alternatively, the Court stated that the law would imply a reasonable time for performance if the contract is silent. Given the original schedule of delivery and installation as well as the later layout schedule, the Court concluded that the schedule reflected a reasonable time for performance. Therefore, the Court agreed with the district court that IPS materially breached and that Schwing was entitled to damages. The Court also concluded that the district court did not err in its computation of damages, with one exception. At the time of IPS's breach, Schwing still owed approximately $50,000 on the contract. To put Schwing in an equivalent, but no better, position then it would have been without a breach requires it to credit IPS for the $50,000.

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

MONCEF LAOUINI v. CLM FREIGHT LINES, INC. (August 20, 2009)

Moncef Laouini, an Arab from Tunisia, worked as a truck driver for CLM until he was fired in 2006. He sued the company under Title VII for race and national-origin discrimination. He alleges that he filed a charge with the EEOC on April 12, 2007 (a date that both parties agree was the deadline). The EEOC's record of the charge indicates that it was not processed until April 16. CLM moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely. Laouini responded with an affidavit from his lawyer. The affidavit indicated that either the lawyer or his assistant faxed the charge to the EEOC on April 12. Laouini also submitted a printout of the confirmation from his lawyer’s fax machine indicating that a three-page document had been transmitted to the EEOC's fax number on April 12. The district court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to CLM. Laouini appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Kanne and Wood vacated and remanded. The Court began by noting that the failure to file a charge in a timely manner is an affirmative defense and the burden is on CLM to demonstrate an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The Court moved on to the significance of the fax confirmation, an issue not yet addressed by the Court. The Court noted that several other courts have concluded that a fax confirmation creates a rebuttable presumption that the fax was, indeed, received by the intended recipient. Other courts have stopped short of that, but treat the fax confirmation as creating an issue of fact on the question of receipt. The Court concluded that the fax confirmation was strong evidence of receipt and that CLM presented no evidence to the contrary. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

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

VALENTINO v. SOUTH CHICAGO HEIGHTS (July 30, 2009)

Sandra Valentino worked for the Village of South Chicago Heights for several years. In 2001, she became suspicious of Mayor David Owen's hiring practices. She was aware that the Village employed many of the mayor's friends and family members. She believed that many of these employees were on a “ghost payroll,” i.e., being paid for work they did not perform. She shared her concerns with William Bramanti, a former village employee who quit as a result of a dispute with the mayor. Bramanti submitted a FOIA request to the village for employee time records. At the same time, Valentino began to make copies of the daily employee sign-in sheets. In February of 2003, Bramanti accused the mayor publicly of ghost payrolling. The very next business day, the Village Administrator searched Valentino's desk, found the copies, and fired Valentino when she arrived for work. Valentino filed a § 1983 action against the Village, the mayor and others. She alleged retaliation in violation of her First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Valentino appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Evans and Williams reversed and remanded. The Court first looked to whether Valentino's speech was constitutionally protected, i.e., whether she spoke as a private citizen on a matter of concern. The Court found it "well-established" that speech which protests government waste is entitled to constitutional protection. Although the Court recognized that Valentino had a private interest in determining whether she was receiving proper compensation, it concluded that her speech was protected since she was not motivated solely by those personal interests. The Court next addressed whether there was evidence that the protected speech was a motivating factor in her termination. The Court found the circumstantial evidence -- knowledge of her relationship with Bramanti, the search of her desk, the search and firing the day after Bramanti's public accusations, and a comment by the mayor threatening her employment -- sufficient to take that issue to a jury. That same evidence, as well as the fact that the sign-in sheets were on public display and were simply copied by Valentino, was enough for the Court to conclude that a jury could also find the village's stated reason for her termination pretextual. Thus, the Court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants. With respect to the Monell claim, the Court stated that the Village could be liable for the constitutional violation if it was caused by an individual with final policymaking authority. The question for the Court was whether Owens had final authority on matters of hiring and firing. The Court concluded that the evidence was conclusive that Mayor Owen made personnel decisions for the village without any meaningful oversight, and thus had final authority. The Court reversed the district court with respect to the village's liability under Monell. Finally, the Court rejected defendants' argument that the Illinois Tort Immunity Act immunized them. That Act immunizes village officials from certain discretionary policy decisions. The decision to fired Valentino was not a policy decision -- the defendants are not entitled to immunity.

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

TRADE FINANCE PARTNERS, LLC v. AAR CORP. (July 16, 2009)

Trade Finance Partners ("TFP") is, in essence, a broker that arranges business relationships for its clients. It charges a fee on any business it secures. AAR, an aviation support company, was a TFP client. The companies began working together in late 2004, and entered into a contract in January 2005. The contract allowed TFP to secure business from any "target accounts" which were identified by AAR in a written Request for Information ("RFI"). Just prior to and separate from its relationship with TFP, AAR responded to a Northwest Airlines Request for Proposal for an aircraft maintenance and repair contract. TFP alleges that AAR identified Northwest as a target account, even though they did not complete an RFI. Northwest and TFP did communicate in early 2005. In February, Northwest reissued its Request for Proposal and AAR updated its submission, all without the knowledge or involvement of TFP. Northwest selected AAR for the maintenance contract. TFP filed suit, alleging that its efforts caused Northwest to award the contract to AAR. The district court granted summary judgment to AAR. TFP appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Wood and Sykes affirmed. The Court rejected each link in TFP's argument chain: a) the initial overtures between TFP and Northwest related only to a landing gear proposal and are not relevant to the maintenance contract inquiry, b) the record does not support TFP's assertion that there was a “barrier” of some sort between Northwest and AAR before its intervention, c) the record evidence does support the conclusion that Northwest rejected TFP's business model and independently awarded the maintenance contract to AAR, and d) the record does not support TFP's claims that it was responsible for Northwest's visit to AAR's facility or that the visit was relevant to the award of the contract. The Court conceded that it must construe the evidence and its inferences in TFP's favor -- but it found nothing but speculation. The Court also rejected TFP's claims that AAR's failure to complete an RFI was a breach of the contract, that AAR's intention not to fulfill its promise constituted fraud, or that it could recover in quantum meruit.

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

APEX DIGITAL, INC. V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY (July 16, 2009)

Apex brought a breach of contract claim against Sears, alleging Sears owed it in excess of $80 million. Sears moved to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It asserted that Apex lacked standing because it had assigned away its rights in the Sears receivables. Sears attached to its motion a letter from Apex attesting to that fact. When Apex offered no response, the district court granted Sears' motion. Apex appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Kanne affirmed. The plaintiff, said the Court, bears the burden of establishing standing, an essential component of any case. The Court agreed with Apex that a sufficient standing allegation is enough to overcome a facial challenge. With respect to a factual challenge, however, where the challenger accepts the sufficiency but challenges the truth of the allegation, the district court is permitted to look beyond the complaint and view any evidence submitted. Because Apex failed to proffer any evidence to rebut its own statement in the letter offered by Sears, the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint.

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

GICLA v. UNITED STATES (July 15, 2009)

David Gicla fractured his right ankle in a motorcycle accident when he was 20. Twenty years later, experiencing pain and swelling, he went to the Westside VA Medical Center in Chicago for treatment. He had ankle implant surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery was not successful. More unfortunately, additional treatment and surgeries were also unsuccessful and doctors had to amputate Gicla's right leg below the knee. Gicla brought this malpractice action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of the United States. Gicla appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Posner and Rovner affirmed. Gicla's principal argument was that the court should have stricken the testimony of the government's medical expert for a Rule 26 disclosure violation. The expert had testified at his deposition that he had not reviewed a series of x-rays in reaching his opinion. On the day of his testimony, however, he did review the x-rays. Gicla's counsel did not learn of that fact until the he cross-examined the expert. The Court agreed with Gicla that Rule 26 requires disclosure of any information considered by an expert in forming an opinion, and requires a party to supplement that disclosure. The Court also agreed that Rule 37 provides for the exclusion of expert testimony in the case of a disclosure violation. But the Court also noted that Rule 37 provides that exclusion is not appropriate if the failure to disclose was harmless. Here, the only real impact of the violation was that Gicla could no longer cross examine him on his failure to examine the x-rays. The court allowed Gicla's counsel a recess to reassess his cross-examination, or to contact his own expert, or to demonstrate actual prejudice to the court. The Court concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the violation was harmless. 

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

MISTER v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP. (July 9, 2009)

Gary Mister, an employee of Northeast Illinois Commuter Railroad Corp. ("Metra"), was returning to his parked car on a January day in 2005 when he slipped on the ice and fell. Kirk Kroner, Metra's Safety Officer, investigated the accident. At the hospital, he discussed it with two of Mister's supervisors. According to his written report, a similar incident had occurred at the same location a week prior. At trial, the court excluded the report and all related testimony. After a jury found for Metra, Mister appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple and Wood affirmed. The Court first addressed the hearsay issue. The Court recognized the party admission exception to the hearsay rule that applies if the statement is made by a party's agent, during the period of agency, and within the subject matter of the agency. The Court found that the report met the party admission exception requirements. Here, the district court excluded the report because she found the statement inherently unreliable. Disagreeing with the district court, the Court noted that reliability was not required for the report to be an admission. Finding a party admission did not end the Court’s inquiry. Under Rule 403, a court may balance the probative value of evidence with its prejudicial effect. Here, although the report was not hearsay, it was based on multiple layers of hearsay and there was no basis to conclude that the accidents did in fact occur in the same place. The Court concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the report under Rule 403.

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

TRUSTEES OF THE CHICAGO PLASTERING INSTITUTE PENSION TRUST v. CORK PLASTERING COMPANY (July 1, 2009)

G&J Plastering Company is a plastering contractor in the Greater Chicago area. Between 1993 and 2002, three different labor unions represented the plastering employees of G&J, including Local 5 of the Journeymen Plasterers' Protective and Benevolent Society of Chicago. The collective bargaining agreements of each union required G&J to make contributions to various union trust funds. Local 5 required the company to contribute based on an employee’s union, regardless of where the work was performed. One of the other unions required the company to make contributions based on work location, not the employee’s union. A union election conducted in 2002 resulted in the termination of Local 5’s representation of the company. In an exit audit, the company disclosed that it had been making contributions based on union membership rather than work location and had no records showing where work was performed. Given this absence of data, Local 5 instructed its auditors to compute the amount owed based on a set of assumptions and a review of the company’s payroll records. The auditors concluded that the company owed in excess of $800,000. Local 5 filed suit. After a three-day bench trial, the court awarded $1.1 million for unpaid contributions plus interest but disallowed the union's request to recover $45,000 in audit costs. Both sides appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Rovner and Evans affirmed. The Court considered three issues on appeal: a) the admissibility of the audit report, b) the admissibility of testimony about the report by one of the auditors, and c) the court's refusal to award audit costs. The Court first upheld the admissibility of the audit report. The report itself was not hearsay -- it was merely a summary of the company's payroll data. The assumptions the auditors applied to the data were not secret, were required because of the company's failure to keep records, and were considered by the lower court and accepted in part and rejected in part. The Court also found that the testimony in support of the report proper. The witness, although he was not a field auditor, was in regular contact with them, reviewed their work, and reviewed the final report. His testimony was not an audit opinion and he did not have to be qualified as an expert. Finally, with respect to the audit costs, the Court concluded that the lower court was within its discretion to deny the request when the union failed to provide sufficient supporting documentation (hours spent, individuals performing the work, qualifications of individuals, hourly rates, etc.).

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

GERHARD VON DER RUHR v. IMMTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC. (June 30, 2009)

Gerhard Von der Ruhr founded Immtech and Septech, both medical technology companies. Immtech patented a human protein product. Septech claims it has a worldwide license and a right to purchase the product from Immtech. Septech claims that Immtech breached the agreement, resulting in lost profits. Septech offered the lay opinion testimony of Von der Ruhr that, had Immtech not breached: a) Septech would have partnered with a major, undetermined pharmaceutical company, b) the pharmaceutical company would have developed and received FDA clearance of the product at its cost, c) the product would have immediately captured half of the target market, and d) Septech would have received 5% of sales proceeds. He would have testified that Septech’s lost sales amount to $42 million. The district court did not allow the testimony and precluded the lost profits claim. Septech appeals.

Von der Ruhr had an option to purchase 24,390 shares of Immtech stock at $.34 a share, exercisable in whole or in part by May 1, 2001. He attempted to exercise the options in April of that year and sent a check in an amount equal to the number of shares times $.34. The company never issued the shares. Instead, relying on the fact that the option price was really $. 3409594, returned the check. A jury found that Immtech breached the contract and also found that three individual officers were guilty of tortious interference with the contract. The individuals appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Wood affirmed. With respect to the lay opinion testimony, the Court recognized that lay opinion testimony is permissible in limited situations when the witness has particularized, personal knowledge. Von der Ruhr had no such knowledge – he never entered into the kind of licensing agreement he described, he never brought a pharmaceutical to market, he never even made a profit in the business, and he had no knowledge of the market. The Court found no abuse of discretion in disallowing the testimony.

With respect to the tortious interference, the Court conceded that there was evidence to support the defendants’ assertions of innocence. However, a jury found otherwise and the Court concluded that their decision was not irrational based on other evidence -- Von der Ruhr was treated differently, they originally authorized the share transfer, only $23.40 was at stake, there was a history of tension and strife, etc.

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

STEPHENS v. ERICKSON (June 30, 2009)

Lesley Stephens, an African American, has worked for the City of Chicago since 1979, except for a disability leave from 1988-1993. He has been a truck driver, an acting foreman, and an accident adjuster, all within the Department of Fleet Management. He filed a lawsuit against the City in 1997, alleging that it engaged in racially discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. Shortly after he settled the lawsuit in 2004, Stephens applied for four promotions. He was passed over each time. He again brought suit, alleging violations of § 1981 and Title VII. He claims that the City retaliated against him for his earlier lawsuit and his complaints of discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. Stephens appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Wood and Sykes affirmed. The Court stated that it would apply the same elements to the claims under § 1981 and Title VII. Stephens chose to establish his retaliation claim under the direct method of proof. The principal issue on appeal was the causal connection between Stephens' protected activity and the City's failure to promote him. The Court set out the promotion procedure in detail – and stated that Stephens produced no evidence that any of the several employees who interviewed him for the promotions even knew of the earlier lawsuit or his prior complaints of discrimination. The Court noted that in each case, the City interviewed several applicants, rated the applicants on the same criteria, and recommended the applicant with the highest score. The Court also rejected Stephens' argument that the head of the department retaliated against him by pre-selecting his preferred candidate by choosing him for an "acting" position, leading the interviewers to a predetermined selection. Nothing in the record linked the department head to any of the interviews or any of the interviewers. The Court concluded that Stephens simply had not produced evidence sufficient to create an inference of retaliation. The Court also concluded that the retaliation allegations other than failure to promote (menial job assignments, intimidation, segregation, etc.) would not dissuade a reasonable employee from making a charge of discrimination and were therefore not "materially adverse" and actionable.

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

CUNNINGHAM v. MASTERWEAR CORP. (June 23, 2009
 

The Cunninghams owned a building in Martinsville, Indiana in which they operated a photographic studio from 1986 until 2004. The building next door contained a dry cleaning establishment. Soon after the Cunninghams made the building their residence, they both began to experience headaches and other physical maladies. They moved out as soon as the EPA advised them that high levels of perchloroethylene (PCE), a chemical used in dry cleaning, in their home posed a potential health risk. The Cunninghams brought an action for common law nuisance, seeking damages for both their physical injuries and their loss of property value. The court disqualified their only medical expert and barred them from testifying regarding appraisals of their property. The court then granted summary judgment to the defendant. The Cunninghams appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion and Kanne affirmed. Although the expert had concluded that all of the Cunningham’s symptoms were caused by exposure to PCE, the Court noted that he was not a toxicologist, and he presented no scientific theory that linked the Cunningham’s exposure level to their symptoms. The Court concluded, therefore, he presented no evidence upon which a trier of fact could rely to conclude that the exposure was the cause of the ailments. With respect to the valuation of the property, the Court stated that a property owner can testify about the value of his property if he is an expert on property values or if he has personal knowledge. Cunningham simply wanted to repeat others’ assessments of the property’s value. The Court concluded that the testimony was properly disallowed as hearsay. The Court added that, even if the testimony was allowed, there was no evidence regarding the cause of any loss in value. Since the Cunningham’s were entitled only to the loss of value that could be fairly attributed to the PCE, as opposed to market forces or otherwise, they could not have prevailed even with the testimony.

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

MUHA v. ENCORE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, INC. (March 10, 2009)

Charlotte Muha, representing a class of credit card debtors, brought an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") against Encore Receivable Management, Inc. The complaint alleged that Encore violated the FDCPA by stating, in a debt collection letter, that "your original agreement with the above mentioned creditor has been revoked." Plaintiffs allege that that statement is false. The plaintiffs also claim that the statement is misleading and confusing and sought to introduce a survey to support that allegation. The lower court excluded the survey and granted summary judgment to Encore. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne and Tinder affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court first upheld the lower court's exclusion of the survey. It concluded that the survey was improper both because the questions and answers were leading and because there was no control group that was shown the letter without the language in question. Notwithstanding the exclusion of the survey (and notwithstanding the admission at oral argument that plaintiffs could not prove damages without the survey), the Court held that plaintiffs could be entitled to statutory damages. The plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the statement was misleading. Although a survey may be the best evidence of that, is not the only potential evidence. The recipients of the letter itself may testify, allowing the judge to infer that the letter is misleading within the meaning of the FDCPA. The Court then addressed the merits of the falsity argument. The issue, it stated, was not the falsity of the statement. The Court concluded that the statement obviously meant that the credit card privileges of the recipient have been revoked. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs are entitled to attempt to prove that the statement is misleading. The Court found that the statement was confusing and noted that confusing language can have an intimidating effect on an unsophisticated consumer. It did not think the evidence was so clear on that point so as to entitle the plaintiff to summary judgment, however. It reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 

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

GREENE v. POTTER (March 5, 2009)

Mary Alice Greene worked for the post office. She worked five days a week and was allowed to volunteer for overtime on her days off. Each quarter, the post office generated a list of employees who wanted overtime. The assignments were supposed to rotate according to seniority, but the post office was not required to schedule an employee for more than one overtime shift a week. Greene’s off days were Sunday and one weekday. She always requested overtime on both of her off days, although she preferred Sunday overtime. During a two-year period, Greene was offered 22 overtime shifts, only five of which were Sundays. Greene brought an action against the post office for gender discrimination. She claimed that her supervisor favored his male friends to the detriment of the female employees in scheduling the more desirable Sunday overtime. During Greene's case-in-chief, the court granted the post office's motion for judgment as a matter of law. Greene appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple and Evans affirmed. The Court first addressed Greene's argument that the entry of judgment in the middle of her case-in-chief was improper. The Court noted that FRCP 50 allows a court to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law once "a party has been fully heard." The Court recognized that the common practice may be to wait until a party has concluded its case-in-chief. Nevertheless, it concluded that it is proper to enter judgment prior to the close of the plaintiff's case if it has become apparent that the plaintiff cannot prove her case. Here, on the merits, Greene relied on the indirect method of proving illegal discrimination. The Court assumed, for purposes of the appeal, that Greene could have satisfied the elements of the indirect method. It proceeded to address whether Greene presented a genuine issue regarding the post office’s reason for its actions. In order to prevail, Greene had to show that the post office reasons were a pretext for gender discrimination. Greene presented evidence that her supervisor did not schedule overtime according to the post office's policies. The evidence in fact demonstrated that the supervisor manipulated the system to benefit a few of his friends. Greene’s evidence showed conclusively that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for her supervisor's decisions. Since her own evidence that was submitted and that she planned to submit actually defeated her claim, the court acted properly in entering judgment as a matter of law during her case-in-chief.
 

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

SOLIS V. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT CORP. (March 5, 2009)

George Klein is the president and sole shareholder of Current Development Corporation (CDC). CDC sponsored two employee benefit plans. The Department of Labor objected to the way Klein ran the plans and filed suit in District Court. In a settlement by consent order, Klein agreed to terminate both plans and distribute their assets -- a vacant parcel of land and almost $900,000 in cash. Klein allowed the plan participants to choose to take their shares in cash or in an ownership interest in the property. Almost everyone selected the cash option. Klein and his wife, themselves plan participants, were left with a 97% interest in the land. While Klein was winding up the plans, unbeknownst to the participants, he was negotiating the sale of the property. He used a property value of $1.7 million in calculating the participants' shares, even though he had already rejected a $2.3 million purchase offer. The Department of Labor found out about these negotiations and returned to court. The court concluded that Klein had breached his duty of loyalty to the participants and removed him as trustee. The court also appointed an independent fiduciary, who soon sold the property for $2.6 million. The independent fiduciary concluded, after a review of CDC's books and records, that Klein owed the plan another $170,000. The court ordered Klein to repay the money, with prejudgment interest. The independent fiduciary then calculated the final asset distribution figures, which the court adopted. Klein appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Rovner and Evans dismissed in part and affirmed in part. The Court first addressed the jurisdictional issue. Klein filed two notices of appeal -- one after the court's denial of his motion to reconsider the order of prejudgment interest, and one after the court’s final payment determination. The Court noted that the consent decree itself was a final order. All orders after that were post-judgment orders. The Court compared a post-judgment proceeding to a freestanding lawsuit. In determining its scope of appeal, an appellate court will look for the nature of the proceeding and a final determination of the issues. Here, the Department of Labor began the proceedings when it filed its motion seeking Klein's removal as trustee and disgorgement of his gains. Thus, the proceeding was not final until both those issues were decided. The Court concluded that the post-judgment proceedings were final upon the court's determination of the distribution amounts. Since Klein filed a timely notice of appeal from that decision, the Court concluded that it had appellate jurisdiction of the matters presented during the proceedings. The Court dismissed Klein’s first appeal. The Court then addressed the standard of proof. Klein attempted to characterize the proceeding as one for civil contempt – with an accompanying clear and convincing standard of proof. The Court rejected that conclusion, holding that the proceeding was merely one for violation of the consent order. On the merits, the Court had little difficulty dismissing Klein's arguments: a) he waived his right to evidentiary hearing, b.) he should have disclosed the ongoing negotiations for the sale of the property to the plan's participants, c.) the court authorized the investigation into his operation of the plan, and d) the lower court's order for Klein to return money he took from the plan's assets in violation of ERISA and the final determination order were not clearly erroneous.

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

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (March 2, 2009)

Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) and the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) entered into a contract for the transportation of coal from Colorado coal mines to WEPCO during the years 1999 -- 2005. The rate that UP could charge WEPCO depended on whether UP was able to reload its empty railcars with shipments of iron ore destined for a steel mill in Utah. The contract provided that UP could charge the higher rate if "an event of force majeure" prevented it from reloading its rail cars with iron ore. The steel mill was bankrupt when the parties entered into the agreement, though still operating. It shut down in 2001, but did not close for good until 2004. UP declared an "event of force majeure" after the mill’s final closure in 2004. WEPCO sued UP for breach of contract, alleging that it was not liable for the higher rate under the contract and that UP failed to perform its contractual obligation to ship requested tonnage to WEPCO. The District Court granted summary judgment to UP. WEPCO appeals

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Rovner affirmed. The Court first rejected WEPCO’s argument that UP waived its rights by not providing the “prompt notice” required by the contract. UP did not assert its rights upon the plant’s first closing. But the contract included a “no waiver” clause, which provided that a party did not waive a right by not insisting upon it. A no-waiver clause can itself be waived, said the Court, but only with clear and convincing evidence. Such evidence was not present in the case. The Court also noted the lack of any evidence that WEPCO was harmed by the late notice. There was no dispute over the existence of the plant’s closing and WEPCO presented no evidence that it could have developed less expensive alternatives had it been put on notice. The Court even noted that WEPCO saved $7 million due to UP’s decision not to give notice of force majeure in 2001.

The Court also rejected WEPCO’s claim that UP’s failure to ship 100% of its requested tonnage was a breach of the agreement. The contract required UP to make “good faith reasonable efforts” to meet WEPCO’s demand. The Court concluded that UP’s decision to ship to other customers, even ones who might be paying more for the shipments, did not constitute a lack of good faith. A lack of good faith requires evidence of lack of diligence, a willful failure to perform, abuse of power, or interference with performance – none of which were presented here.
 

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM. v. KOENIG (February 26, 2009)

James Koenig was the Chief Financial Officer of Waste Management, Inc. In the early 1990s, after years of acceptable growth, the company’s financial performance began to suffer. Koenig devised several accounting strategies that made the company appear more profitable than it was. Koenig resigned in January of 1997. In October of 1997, the company disclosed in a press release that its financial statements were inaccurate and unreliable. The SEC filed a complaint against Koenig in March of 2002. At trial, the jury found that his accounting strategies were fraudulent. The court imposed a $2.1 million civil penalty, ordered the disgorgement of almost $1 million in bonuses, imposed $1.2 million in pretax interest, and enjoined Koenig from serving as a director of a public company. Koenig appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Wood affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court first addressed Koenig's statute of limitations argument. Although recognizing that the statute is five years and that more than five years passed between Koenig's resignation and the filing of the complaint, the Court rejected Koenig's argument. Instead, the Court noted that there has long been a special rule for statutes of limitations in fraud cases. A victim of fraud has the full statutory time to file, beginning from the date the wrong came to light or would have with due diligence. Since Koenig's accounting misdeeds were not public until the company issued its press release and Koenig never claimed that the SEC could have known earlier, the complaint was timely. The Court then addressed several trial management objections. It concluded that the lower court did not err in allowing the SEC to put on evidence of the motives of the company's new management. Although originally denying the SEC's motion in limine, the lower court admitted motive evidence after Koenig "opened the door." The court had warned Koenig that it would allow the evidence if Koenig made motive at issue. Second, the Court approved of the trial court’s practice of allowing the jurors to submit questions for witnesses and found no abuse of discretion. Third, the Court found no violation of the discovery or notice rules in the SEC's calling as its witness Koenig’s own expert, whom he did not call. Koenig also complains that the $2.1 million penalty was greater than allowed by the statute. The statute limits a penalty to no greater than the greater of $100,000 or the defendant’s pecuniary gain. The court included pre-judgment interest in its calculation of pecuniary gain. The Court approved of this formula. It held that pecuniary gain is the amount the defendant obtained as a result of his fraudulent accounting practices plus any return he could have made by investing that sum, until its disgorgement. The Court did disagree with the district court's computation of Koenig's bonuses. The company awards bonuses based on increases in the company's earnings over the prior year. Based upon the testimony of the SEC's expert, the Court concluded that the company’s corrected earnings increased from 1991 - 1992. The Court remanded for a recalculation of Koenig’s bonuses and, if necessary, a recalculation of the penalties.

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

LINDQUIST FORD v. MIDDLETON MOTORS (February 25, 2009)

The Hudson brothers owned and operated Middleton Motors, Inc. (“Middleton”), a Ford dealership. The company was experiencing significant financial difficulties and sought assistance from Lindquist Ford, a dealership in a neighboring state. They discussed the possibility that Craig Miller, Lindquist’s manager, could help manage the operation. They also discussed the possibility of a cash infusion from Lindquist. In April 2003, the parties agreed that Miller would begin working at Middleton on a part-time basis and, in fact, he began working at Middleton on April 21. The parties had not yet reached an agreement although there was an understanding that Miller’s compensation would be based on net profits. Further discussions continued regarding a cash infusion by Lindquist and an understanding of Miller’s compensation but an agreement was never reached. Middleton fired Miller almost a year after he started – without any compensation having been paid or any cash infusion by Lindquist. Lindquist brought an action for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. After a bench trial, the court found for Lindquist on both counts and awarded $152,332 in damages. Middleton appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Sykes and Tinder reversed and remanded. The Court first noted some confusion in Wisconsin case law on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit and reviewed the fundamentals of the claims. Both quantum meruit and unjust enrichment are quasi-contractual remedies applicable only when there is no enforceable contract. Both are governed by equitable principles in Wisconsin. The elements of unjust enrichment are: a) a benefit to the defendant by the plaintiff, b) appreciation by the defendant of the benefit, and c) retention of the benefit where it would be inequitable to retain it without payment. The measure of damages is the value of the benefit. Quantum meruit, on the other hand, does not require a benefit to be conferred on the defendant and damages are determined by the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services. Its elements are: a) proof that the defendant asked for the services of plaintiff, and b) proof that plaintiff reasonably expected compensation. The Court also discussed the Wisconsin case law regarding implied-in-fact contracts, which are different from quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, because it believed the trial court’s confusion stemmed from it. With respect to the quantum meruit claim, the Court concluded that the district court improperly relied on Wisconsin implied-in-fact contract principles. For example, the court excluded evidence of the contract negotiations, deeming them irrelevant because it was not a contract case. The Court disagreed, holding that, although not a contract case, evidence of the negotiations was relevant to the reasonable expectations of the plaintiff. With respect to the unjust enrichment claim, the lower court did properly identify the elements of the claim but the Court determined that it misapplied the equity element. The lower court looked only at the fact that Miller worked for eleven months without pay. The Court concluded that the inquiry should be much broader – the parties had significant negotiations about their expectations for Miller’s compensation and the need for a cash infusion. Again, much of the relevant evidence was disallowed by the court.

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

GOLDEN YEARS HOMESTEAD v. BUCKLAND (February 19, 2009)

Golden Years Homestead, Inc. (“Golden Years”) operates a nursing facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In early 2000, the Indiana Department of Health (“IDH”) conducted an annual certification inspection, as required by Golden Years’ participation in the Medicaid program. The inspection took place over a span of ten days. At some point during the inspection, the inspection team became upset with the conduct of the Golden Years’ team. From then on, the inspection team became loud, overly critical, hostile and accusatory. The team left information favorable to Golden Years out of its report. Golden Years was cited for seventeen violations. After a six-day evidentiary hearing and administrative appeals, all but one of the citations was reversed. Golden Years brought a lawsuit against the inspectors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations and state law claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment for the inspectors. Golden Years appeals the dismissal of the state law claims.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Rovner and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed Golden Years’s complaint that the court dismissed the state law claims sua sponte. The Court disagreed. Although the inspectors did not specifically address the state law issues in their motion, they did ask for all counts to be dismissed. Furthermore, Golden Years actually addressed the state law counts in its response. The lower court acknowledged the general rule that a court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are dismissed before trial. The Court approved the lower court’s invocation of the exception to the rule when the state law claims are meritless. On the substance of the malicious prosecution claim, the Court stated that Golden Years was required to prove malice. Although it seemed to accept that the inspectors’ conduct was overzealous and unprofessional, the Court concluded that the evidence did not support personal animosity or malice. Similarly, the Court concluded that the evidence of hostility and rancor was insufficient to establish the ulterior motive requirement for abuse of process.

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

SCHMUDE v. TRICAM INDUSTRIES, INC. (February 17, 2009)

Kevin Schmude, a 350-pound man, was working on a construction project. He climbed an 8-foot ladder manufactured by Tricam Industries, Inc. (Tricam) to in order to inspect electrical connections in the space above a ceiling. He and the ladder collapsed onto the floor. One of the rivets designed to secure the rear leg was found on the floor. The leg itself had separated from the ladder. A jury found for Schmude and awarded $677,000 in damages. Tricam appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Rovner affirmed. The Court first summarily rejected Tricam’s arguments concerning a minor discrepancy between plaintiff’s expert’s report and testimony and the expert’s demonstration using the ladder. The Court gave greater consideration to Tricam’s objection to the limitations the trial court put on its ability to impeach Schmude with evidence of a prior conviction. Schmude had been convicted in 1995 of the sale, by a felon, of firearms without a license. F.R.E. 609(b) allows evidence of the conviction of a felony more than ten years old for impeachment purposes only when the probative value outweighs the possible prejudice. The trial court ruled that Tricam could impeach Schmude with evidence of the conviction, but would not allow evidence that the felony was actually predicated on yet another, earlier felony. The Court appreciated the significance of the issue – Schmude’s testimony was the only direct evidence of the cause of the fall and the extent of his pain. The Court also appreciated the trial court’s dilemma – without approaching the issue the way he did, the jury would either hear evidence that Schmude had been convicted of two felonies or would hear no evidence of a conviction. The Court concluded that the trial judge made a reasonable choice under the circumstances. Finally, the Court also upheld the trial court’s refusal to allow Tricam to put on certain evidence of Schmude’s anti-social personality. The Court agreed that the evidence in question had no probative value and would have been extremely prejudicial to Schmude.

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

FRIENDS OF MILWAUKEE’S RIVERS v. MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT (February 13, 2009)

Friends of Milwaukee’s Rivers (“FMR”) filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (“MMSD”). FMR alleged that MMSD sewer overflows violated the CWA and MMSD’s permit. Wisconsin sued the MMSD the very same day. MMSD and Wisconsin settled their case soon thereafter. The settlement provided that MMSD would spend over $900 million in upgrades to its sewer system. On MMSD’s motion, the court dismissed FMR’s suit on two bases: the CWA itself and res judicata. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The Court held that the CWA did not bar the suit because FMR filed first. With respect to res judicata, the Court held that the privity requirement depended on whether the settlement constituted “diligent prosecution,” defined as whether it was “calculated to result in compliance.” The Court remanded to the district court for that determination. After an evidentiary hearing and briefing, the district court found for the MMSD and dismissed the complaint on res judicata grounds. FMR appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Cudahy and Wood affirmed. FMR’s main argument on appeal was that the lower court failed to give adequate weight to post-settlement evidence. Principally, FMR argued that massive sewer overflows in 2004 were evidence that the 2002 settlement terms did not result in compliance. The Court first looked at the “central” evidence – i.e., the evidence that existed at the time of the settlement. When the parties act in good faith and address all the known problems and foreseeable consequences, diligent prosecution exists without regard to later events. Turning its attention to post-settlement evidence, the Court found little authority and identified several problems with the consideration of post-settlement evidence. However, it also recognized that post-settlement evidence could be particularly probative of the adequacy of an agreement. The Court rejected the notion that it was wholly irrelevant, but refused to identify any bright-line test for its use. The admissibility and weight of post-settlement evidence will depend on the circumstances of a case. The Court determined that the district court did give adequate consideration to the post-settlement overflows. The district court merely believed the evidence presented by the MMSD that the overflows would not have been violations and that the settlement improvements would have prevented the overflows. The Court also determined that the lower court gave adequate consideration to the post-settlement enforcement activities of Wisconsin.

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

GILES v. WYETH, INC. (February 12, 2009)

Coal miner Jeff Giles suffered a serious neck injury in the 1990s, which continued to cause him pain and limited his mobility for years. In 2002, the mine laid him off. Soon after, he had neck surgery, from which he failed to heal properly. Then, the mine announced its permanent closure. In late 2002, Giles’ doctor diagnosed him as having major depression. He prescribed Effexor, made by Wyeth, Inc. After taking Effexor for two days, Giles committed suicide. Effexor did contain a warning at the time. It recommended close supervision, “good patient management,” and the smallest dosage. In the following years, both Wyeth and the FDA learned more about a potential relationship between antidepressants and an increase in suicidal thinking in teens and adolescents. The FDA required stronger warnings of suicide risks in young people, eventually including persons up to the age of twenty-five. Giles’ widow brought a wrongful death action against Wyeth. The court granted a Wyeth motion in limine and excluded evidence of post-2002 suicide warnings. A jury found for Wyeth. Jacquelyn Giles appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Williams affirmed. First, the Court resolved a dispute between Giles and Wyeth as to the basis for the district court’s ruling on the exclusion of the warnings. After reviewing the pre-trial and trial record, the Court concluded that the judge relied on Rule 403, weighing the evidence’s probative value against the danger of confusion, and not Rule 407. In analyzing the application of Rule 403 to the evidence, the Court determined that the court below did not abuse its discretion. Several factors contributed to that finding: a) the warnings applied only to children, adolescents, and, to some degree, adults under the age of twenty-five (Jeff Giles was forty-six at the time of his death), b) the warnings actually disclaimed increased risk of suicide in adults, c) the 2002 warnings already addressed the general risk of suicide, and d) there is no evidence that the later warnings were based on information that Wyeth knew or should have known in 2002. Finally, the Court rejected Giles’ argument that the lower court should not have admitted post-2002 scientific evidence, particularly in light of its ruling to exclude the later warnings. The Court distinguished between the probative value of the two based on the issue in the case – whether Effexor caused Giles to commit suicide. The later warnings are not relevant to that determination; the later scientific evidence is.

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

HASAN v. FOLEY & LARDNER (December 15, 2008)

Zafar Hasan is a Muslim of Indian descent. In 2000, he joined the law firm of Foley & Lardner (“Foley”) as an associate. (The following are facts construed in a light most favorable to Hasan.) During his first year at the firm, he received mostly positive reviews and maintained high billable hours. The events of September 11, 2001 changed Hasan’s standing in the firm. Hasan’s billable hours dropped considerably and he received much less positive reviews. At a meeting in October of 2002, Foley decided to fire Hasan. The firm notified Hasan in December that he was being terminated. He filed suit in 2004, alleging that Foley violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court granted Foley’s motion for summary judgment. Hasan appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Coffey, Ripple and Manion reversed and remanded. The Court noted that Hasan proceeded under the “direct method” of proving discrimination. Under the direct method, a plaintiff must present evidence, direct or circumstantial, that points to a discriminatory reason for the action of the employer. Courts accept three types of circumstantial evidence in a direct method case. Hasan relies on two types: a) suspicious timing, ambiguous statements, or comments directed at others in the same group, and b) evidence that the employer’s stated reasons for its conduct is not worthy of belief. Hasan’s evidence included: a partner’s anti-Muslim comments, suspicious timing in Hasan’s downturn in billable hours, the financial health of the firm, Foley’s treatment of other Muslim associates, and a changing justification for Foley’s conduct once it located Hasan’s performance reviews. The Court disagreed with the district court’s treatment of some of the evidence. It concluded, for example, that: a) evidence of an anti-Muslim comment by a partner who was not Hasan’s supervisor was valid nonetheless because the partner attended the meeting at which Foley decided to terminate Hasan (and, in fact, may have instigated the decision), b) evidence of an anti-Muslim remark made a year before the decision to terminate may nonetheless be valid circumstantial evidence when it was made at about the time when Foley began to assign work elsewhere, which in turn became a stated reason for his termination, and c) evidence regarding Foley’s treatment of other Muslims is not per se irrelevant but may be relevant depending on how closely tied it is to Hasan’s circumstances. The Court rejected Foley’s argument that Hasan failed to produce evidence of its treatment of similarly situated employees. The direct method of proof does not require such evidence. Finally, the Court noted that Foley initially claimed that it fired Hasan for poor performance but changed its stance when early, positive performance reviews were discovered and produced. They then claimed that Hasan was fired because the firm did not have enough work to keep all associates busy. The Court held that a reasonable jury could have believed both reasons to be pretext. The Court held that the totality of the evidence and possible inferences precluded summary judgment for Foley and remanded to the district court.

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

BOIM v. HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT (December 3, 2008)

David Boim was a Jewish teenager living in Israel. He had dual Israeli/American citizenship. In 1996, he was killed by gunfire near Jerusalem. Boim’s parents brought suit under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). They alleged that defendants Muhammad Salah, Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the American Muslim Society (“AMS”) and the Quranic Literacy Institute (“QLI”) all provided financial support to Hamas and that their son had been killed by Hamas gunmen. The district court rejected the argument that financial assistance was not international terrorism under § 2333(a) in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On an interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court granted summary judgment on liability to plaintiffs with respect to Salah, HLF and AMS. A jury found QLI liable and assessed damages against all defendants of $52 million before trebling. On appeal, a Seventh Circuit panel vacated and remanded to redetermine liability. The plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing en banc, which was granted.

In their opinion, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court first addressed whether the statute even applies to defendants who are alleged only to have provided financial support to those engaged in terrorism. The statute does not specifically mention secondary liability and the Supreme Court in Central Bank of Denver held that a statute that did not mention secondary liability did not create secondary liability. Instead of resolving that issue directly, however, the Court explored an alternative approach. It parsed the language of sections 2331, 2332, 2333 and 2339. Section 2333 creates a cause of action for a person injured “by reason of an act of international terrorism.” Section 2331 includes in the definition of international terrorism “acts dangerous to human life” that violate the U.S. criminal law. The Court concluded that financial assistance to Hamas is an “act dangerous to human life” and violates section 2339. Section 2339 was enacted in 1994 and makes it a crime to provide “material support” knowing that it could be used in carrying out a violation of section 2332. Section 2332 criminalizes the killing of an American citizen outside the U.S. The Court followed this chain to determine that a mere financial contribution to a terrorist organization could violate section 2333. Having determined that the defendants could be liable, the Court proceeded to examine the cause of action and its elements. On the element of intent, the Court held that the defendants must either have known or been deliberately indifferent to whether the organization they funded committed terrorist acts. Given the extreme conduct of the terrorist groups, the Court concluded that it was enough to know the character of the organization. With respect to causation, the Court held that the knowing contributors could not avoid liability on causation because, as a whole, they significantly increased the possibility that Boim would be a target of a Hamas terrorist act.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court addressed each defendant’s liability. It reversed with respect to HLF. The district court had erroneously applied principles of collateral estoppel from earlier litigation to the liability of HLF. The Court remanded for an analysis of HLF’s liability in light of its opinion. The Court reversed outright the findings as against Salah. Salah had been in custody during the period between the enactment of section 2339(a) and the shooting of Boim and could not have provided material support to Hamas during that time. The Court affirmed the findings as against defendants AMS and QLI. It found sufficient evidence that AMS knew that Hamas was a terrorist organization and that it provided material support to Hamas. QLI had elected not to participate in its trial and therefore could not object to the jury instructions or findings.

Finally, the Court addressed the lower court’s determination that the men who killed Boim were members of Hamas. The principle evidence on that point was the affidavit of an expert witness, Dr. Paz. Paz, an expert on terrorism, based his conclusion on terrorist internet sites, notes from a U.S. foreign service officer, and an Islamic-language document purporting to reflect the conviction of one of the murderers. The Court conceded that much of the evidence on which Paz relied was inadmissible. Noting that experts are not limited to admissible evidence in forming their opinions, the Court concluded that the type of evidence on which Paz relied is relied on by security and terrorism experts generally. The Court also noted that the defendants did not introduce any evidence to the contrary. The Court found no error in the lower court’s consideration of the affidavit.

Judge Rovner wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Rovner took principal exception to the majority’s conclusions with respect to causation and the Paz affidavit. She believed that the majority practically eliminated a causation requirement. She would have at least required expert testimony regarding the financial structure of Hamas and the various organizations it controlled. With respect to Paz, she criticized the majority for not only allowing the affidavit based on unproven evidence but for allowing it to support summary judgment. She noted that the defendants are not required to rebut factual propositions on which plaintiff has the burden of proof and has not properly supported. Judge Rovner would remand with respect to all defendants.

Judge Wood also wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Wood principally criticized the majority for its treatment of causation with respect to AMS and QLI. She concedes that “but-for” causation is sometimes not necessary, but she noted that the majority also eliminated the requirement for “sufficient” cause and apparently put little limitation on the remoteness of liability. Judge Wood would require at least proof that AMS and QLI contributed a “non-trivial” sum of money to an organization that was sufficiently connected to Hamas that the money indirectly supported Hamas’ terrorist mission. She also would impose a proximate cause limitation on the acts of the defendants, which the majority did not do. Judge Wood also disagreed with the majority’s statements on the scope of liability under the statute, calling it “awfully vague.” Finally, she disagreed with the treatment of the Paz affidavit and would remand to allow plaintiffs to meet the threshold requirements of Rule 702.

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