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

JANKY v. LAKE COUNTY CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU (August 3, 2009)

Cheryl Janky and Henry Farag were members of the musical group Stormy Weather. They learned that the Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau (Bureau) was looking for a song to use in marketing the county’s resources. Janky wrote the music and lyrics for a song and obtained a copyright for it. Her band-mate Farag made several specific recommendations regarding the song’s lyrics. Janky adopted the recommendations and filed for a new copyright listing Farag as the co-author of the song. The Bureau liked the song and began using it in its promotions. Farag issued a non-exclusive license to the Bureau. Some time later, Janky filed yet another copyright registration to correct what she termed a mistake in listing Farag as a co-author. Janky notified the Bureau that she was the exclusive owner of the song. The Bureau, however, did not stop using the song. Janky filed suit. The court entered partial summary judgment in her favor and a jury awarded her $100,000. The Bureau appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple (dissenting) and Evans reversed and remanded. The principal issue before the Court was whether Janky held the copyright by herself or whether she shared it with Farag. The legal standard is that individuals are co-authors when they intend to create a joint work and both contribute independently copyrightable material. The majority elaborated on the intent prong by stating that it does not focus on the party's intent to recognize each other as co-authors but on their intent to create a single product together. The majority concluded that the evidence supported a finding that Farag and Janky intended to create a joint work. They relied significantly on Janky's original copyright registration. The majority also found the independently copyrightable prong met in this case. They noted that the changes, although only 10% of the final lyrics, were significant not only to the sound but to the commercial viability of the song. The Court remanded for partial summary judgment to be entered for the Bureau.

Judge Ripple, dissenting, agreed with the majority's statement of the standard and, in fact, agreed with the majority that the district court improperly granted summary judgment to Janky. He disagreed, however, with the majority’s conclusion to enter partial summary judgment in favor of the Bureau. Particularly with respect to the evidence of intent, Judge Ripple concluded that the record did not support entry of judgment for either party.

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

WISCONSIN v. THE STOCKBRIDGE-MUNEE COMMUNITY (January 20, 2009)

The Mohican ancestors of the Stockbridge-Munee Indians (“Tribe”) moved from western Massachusetts to New York and, eventually, to Wisconsin early in the 1800s. Additional pressure to move yet again produced two factions within the Tribe – those that wanted to move farther west and those that wanted to eliminate the tribal structure, remain in Wisconsin, and become full U.S. citizens (more history here). A treaty was eventually entered into in 1856. The Tribe gave up the land it had in return for the creation of a reservation consisting of the Bartelme and Red Springs townships, also in Wisconsin. Problems with the land – it was heavily forested and hard to farm but the Tribe was not allowed to sell the timber – and continued internal conflicts led to further Congressional intervention. Pursuant to acts passed in 1871, 1893 and 1906, much of the land was sold, proceeds were divided among tribal members, some members were ousted from the Tribe, and some were later reinstated. Finally, tribal members agreed to accept land or cash in lieu in full settlement of their rights, including those arising under the 1856 treaty. Years later, the Department of the Interior helped the Tribe reacquire some, but not all, of the original two townships. Why does all of this matter? Because the Tribe is now allowed to operate gaming activities within the boundaries of its reservation. The Tribe bought the Pine Hills golf club in 1993 and operates slot machines there. Wisconsin thinks Pine Hills is not within the current boundaries of the reservation. It sued to enjoin the gambling and for a declaration setting forth the boundaries of the reservation. The district court granted summary judgment to Wisconsin. The Tribe appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Evans affirmed. The Court made the “unremarkable” observation that a reservation, once established, must remain intact unless and until Congress explicitly alters it. An intent by Congress to do so cannot be inferred lightly. A court should first look at the language of a statute. In the absence of a clear intent, a court can look at the circumstances surrounding the act, and even subsequent events. The Court addressed the 1871 act and found, based on the language of the Act and surrounding circumstances, that Congress meant to reduce the size of the reservation. The Court noted that Congress was addressing the internal conflict in the Tribe. It expected many members of the Tribe to accept a share of the proceeds of the sale of the property and sever ties with the Tribe. A smaller Tribe needed less land. The Court also pointed out that the 1871 Act was consistently interpreted afterward as having reduced the size of the reservation. The Court next addressed the 1906 Act. It, too, lacked an explicit statement of Congressional intent. Again, the Court considered the circumstances. It concluded that all parties – Congress, the Department of Interior, the Tribe – all expected the 1871 Act to complete the allotment of land to the Tribe and extinguish the 1856 reservation in its entirety. One key fact, in the Court’s opinion, was that the land was allotted in fee simple, a requirement for the abolition of the reservation. Again, the Court noted that subsequent events supported the conclusion that the reservation had been eliminated by the Act. By 1910, all the original reservation property had been sold or was held by members of the Tribe in fee simple. The Court concluded that the current extent of the reservation is only that which has been reacquired with the assistance of the Department of the Interior – and it does not include the Pine Hills property.

Judge Ripple concurred, only to emphasize the point that the Court did not in any way depart from the general rule that Congress must be explicit in any attempt to alter or disestablish a reservation.

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

UNITED STATES v. LIGAS   December 1, 2008

Lawrence Ligas owed the government over $300,000 in taxes, penalties, and interest. Federal tax liens attached to his property. The United States brought an action in February 2004, just prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Ligas received a copy of the summons and complaint by mail but did not waive personal service. Between February of 2004 and February of 2005, the government failed to serve Ligas properly. In March, the court granted the government’s fourth request for an extension and permitted service by posting the summons and complaint on the door of Ligas’ home, by mailing copies to his home by certified mail, and by faxing copies to a fax number listed on Ligas’ pro se appearance form. On Ligas’ motion, the district court vacated its March order and dismissed the complaint for failure to serve Ligas. The court determined that the government had not been diligent in its service attempts and was not entitled to the fourth extension. The court relied on two facts – that Ligas’ co-defendant (the bank holding a mortgage on his property) had successfully served Ligas and that the government could not provide evidence of its pre-2005 attempts to serve Ligas. On the same day, Ligas sought to have the tax liens quashed. The government responded by asking for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal, arguing that Ligas had submitted to personal jurisdiction and waived objection to service by appearing to quash the liens. The court agreed. It reinstated the complaint and eventually granted summary judgment to the government. Ligas appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Evans and Sykes reversed and remanded. The Court recited the general rules that a defendant must be served through one of the methods listed in FRCP 4, that a person must normally be served within 120 days but an extension may be granted, and that a complaint must be dismissed if it is not served within the allowed time. The Court concluded that the district court had correctly dismissed the complaint for the government’s failure to serve Ligas. The Court disagreed with the district court’s assessment of the impact of Ligas’ request to quash the tax liens. The Court stated that a defendant’s assertion of a right to affirmative relief does not generally waive an objection to jurisdiction. The affirmative relief can be unrelated to the jurisdiction issue (such as a counterclaim) or related to the jurisdictional issue (such as here, where the enforceability of the tax lien depended on the success of the jurisdiction argument). The fact that Ligas had other methods available to attack the liens did not change the Court’s view of the impact of his appearance. The Court also concluded that Ligas’ participation in the proceedings after the court’s reinstatement did not act as a waiver of his jurisdiction objection.

Judge Evans dissented from the panel’s opinion. Judge Evans emphasized that the court’s dismissal had been without prejudice. The government could refile and attempt service anew. He recognized that even the government itself thought there were serious statute of limitations barriers to a new complaint. But the barriers were not established as fact. The government could refile and put Ligas to the burden of establishing the defense. Since extinguishing the liens did not necessarily follow from the dismissal, Judge Evans believed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reinstating the complaint. 

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

MCKINNEY v. CADLEWAY PROPERTIES, INC. (November 13, 2008)

Versia McKinney’s sewer backed up in her Chicago home in 1996 and caused substantial damage. McKinney took out a disaster assistance loan of $5200 from the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). At some point, McKinney stopped making payments on the loan. The SBA sold the loan. It eventually was sold to Cadleway Properties, Inc. (“Cadleway”). Cadleway sent McKinney a letter in September 2004. The letter informed McKinney that Cadleway had purchased the debt and that McKinney should make payments to Cadleway. The back of the letter contained a “Validation of Debt Notice” intended to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”). The notice stated that: a) McKinney owed $4,370.02, b) McKinney had 30 days to tell Cadleway that she disputed the debt, and c) Cadleway would assume the debt was valid if McKinney did not so dispute. At the bottom of the form, McKinney was asked to confirm the amount of the balance as stated by Cadleway or to state what she believed to be the correct balance. McKinney filed an action against Cadleway alleging that the notice letter violated the Act. She only sought statutory damages and attorney’s fees. The court below held that: a) the obligation was a “debt” under the Act, b) Cadleway was a “debt collector” under the Act, and c) the notice letter was confusing on its face to an unsophisticated consumer and therefore in violation of the Act. The court granted summary judgment to McKinney. Cadleway appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment), Rovner (concurring in part, dissenting in part), and Sykes reversed and remanded. The Court stated that the purpose of the Act was to protect consumers from deceptive and unfair debt collection practices. It applies only to “debt collectors,” as that term is defined in the Act. The substantive section relevant to McKinney’s complaint is the requirement that a debt collector notify a consumer of her right to dispute the validity of, and receive a verification of, the debt. The Court first addressed Cadleway’s status as a “debt collector.” The majority on that issue (Sykes and Rovner) relied on the language of the Act and the Court’s prior decision in Schlosser to hold that Cadleway was a debt collector. The Court stated that the terms “debt collector” and “creditor” in the Act are mutually exclusive. The determinative factor in deciding which term applies to Cadleway is whether the debt was in default at the time Cadleway acquired it. Since McKinney’s debt was in default, Cadleway was a debt collector. With respect to the notice, the majority on that issue (Sykes and Manion) stated that the Act requires the debt collector to provide an initial communication with certain disclosures to the consumer. The Act requires no particular form but the disclosures must not be confusing to the “unsophisticated consumer.” Normally, the majority noted, the plaintiff would bring forth evidence of confusion. Here, McKinney introduced no extrinsic evidence of confusion. In fact, McKinney testified that she herself was not confused by the notice. The majority conceded that a notice letter could be so clearly confusing on its face that summary judgment could be granted. However, it did not believe that McKinney’s notice was such a case. The Court specifically addressed the balance confirmation request that the district court had found to be confusing. The majority found the notice to be clear. It simply asked McKinney to confirm the amount of the debt or dispute it. The notice complied with the Act. The Court remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Cadleway.

Judge Manion concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Judge Manion agreed with the Court’s opinion on the validity of the notice letter. He noted that, given the outcome on that issue, the Court need not have resolved the “debt collector” issue. Having done so, however, Judge Manion wrote to express his disagreement with the resolution of that issue. The exclusionary language in the definition of “creditor” and the definition of “debt collector” in the Act refer to a person who collects a debt “for another” or “due another,” respectively. Cadleway was not collecting the debt for another. Cadleway purchased the debt and was collecting it for its own account. Judge Manion conceded that Schlosser held that the person holding the debt was a “debt collector” in similar circumstances. He pointed out, however, that the issue of collecting for another never came up. Judge Manion would not have been found Cadleway to be a “debt collector.”

Judge Rovner also wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Rovner concurred with the majority’s resolution of the “debt collector” issue without additional comment. She disagreed with the resolution of the validity of the notice letter, however. Judge Rovner found the letter “clearly confusing” on its face. She focused solely on the balance confirmation request section. Judge Rovner found the paragraph confusing, particularly to a consumer who may believe she owes something but has no records or other way of computing a different amount. The letter implies that the confirmation is obligatory, and also implies that failure to do so will damage one’s credit rating. Under the terms of the Act, the creditor can simply respond that she disputes the debt collector’s proffered total. Judge Rovner found the letter different from, and at least to some degree contrary to, the terms of the Act and therefore a violation of the Act.

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

AMRHEIN v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORP.  (October 20, 2008)

Kitsy Amrhein was a group specialist in Health Care Service Corp.’s (“HCSC”) Springfield office. Her principal duty was to service employers that have Blue Cross/Blue Shield Insurance. Amrhein and Scott Redpath became group specialists at the same time. In addition to Amrhein and Redpath, the group consisted of six other women. The group all reported to Benner, who reported to Marquedant, who reported to Woods. In late 2002, Amrhein became convinced that Redpath was performing at a lower level than she but receiving preferred treatment. She made her opinion known to others, including Benner, and continued to do so throughout 2003. HCSC disciplined Amrhein twice in 2003, once for disclosing competitive information and once for excessive personal phone use. After the discipline for the telephone use, things started to heat up.

• Amrhein, Brenner, and Marquedant met in early December to discuss the telephone issue. At that meeting, Amrhein first said that she was considering filing an EEOC complaint.
• In December, Marquedant initiated a human resources investigation in response to an Amrhein e-mail complaint. In January of 2005, Amrhein met with Marquedant and the human resources representative. The human resources representative reported that the investigation revealed no evidence of gender discrimination towards Amrhein. Again, Amrhein said she was going to file an EEOC complaint.
• In January, Marquedant monitored a phone conversation where Amrhein revealed what Marquedant believed was confidential information.
• In early February, Woods asked her supervisor for help in dealing with Amrhein. She referred to Amrhein as a “huge challenge,” “disruptive,” and “costing a huge amount of time and resources.”
• At a meeting in February regarding personal time, Amrhein complained about her inability to use some accrued time. Marquedant told Amrhein that she had opened a “can of worms” and that she should not have “made the complaint.” Witnesses stated that Amrhein became very argumentative with Marquedant, but Amrhein denies it.

HCSC terminated Amrhein on March 1 for her insubordination at the February meeting and the improper confidential information disclosure in January. Amrhein brought an action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She alleged that HCSC discriminated against her on the basis of gender and that HCSC retaliated against her because of her complaints about the discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for HCSC. Amrhein appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer and Wood affirmed. Judge Rovner dissented. Amrhein did not appeal the judgment on the discrimination itself so the Court addressed only the retaliation claim. The majority observed that an employee can establish discrimination for opposing an unlawful business practice in two ways. In the first (the direct method), she must show a) a statutorily protected activity, b) the employer’s materially adverse action, and c) a causal connection. The majority concluded that Amrhein’s circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support an inference that her termination was related to her threat to file an EEOC complaint. The Court agreed that the timing of events can provide that inference, but found that the almost three month period between Amrhein’s first “threat” to file a complaint and her termination was too attenuated to do so. In the second (the indirect method), an employee can show a) a protected activity, b) her performance meeting legitimate employment expectations, c) an adverse employment action, and d) less favorable treatment than a similarly situated employee who did not engage in the protected activity. The Court concluded that Amrhein did not identify a similarly situated individual. Such an individual need not be identical, but must be comparable in material respects. None of the three individuals suggested by Amrhein had comparable disciplinary histories. The Court added that even if Amrhein had met her indirect method burden, there was ample evidence to support HCSC’s proffered reasons for the termination.

Judge Rovner dissented, admitting that it was a close case. She focused on the statements of Woods and Marquedant in February, just before the decision to terminate. She believed that they implied a retaliatory intent and that the Court should treat the case as a mixed motive case. In such a case, the employer must prove that it would have made the same decision had it not considered the protected activity. Judge Rovner noted that mixed motive cases are rarely summary judgment cases. Because of the questions of fact regarding whether HCSC would have fired Amrhein absent their unlawful motive, she would remand the case for trial.

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

EEOC v. LEE’S LOG CABIN  (October 6, 2008)

Korrin Stewart was diagnosed as HIV-positive when she was just fourteen years old. Shortly thereafter, she learned that it had actually developed into AIDS. At the age of eighteen, she applied for a server position at Lee’s Log Cabin (“Lee’s”). She was aware that the job had a 25-30 pound lifting requirement. Nevertheless, she stated on her application that she could lift no more than 10 pounds and that there were no accommodations that would allow her to perform that requirement of the job. After some time went by without a response from Lee’s, Stewart visited the restaurant and spoke with Zastrow, an assistant manager. In response to Zastrow’s question, Stewart admitted that she was the same person who had alleged that a prior employer had fired her when the employer learned that she was HIV-positive. Stewart also saw a copy of her application, on which appeared the notation “HIV+.” Lee’s did not offer the position to Stewart, ostensibly on the ground that she had no server experience and could not meet the lifting requirement. The EEOC filed suit, alleging that Lee’s violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The EEOC alleged that Lee’s failed to hire Stewart because it learned that she was HIV-positive. About one month before trial, in response to Lee’s motion for summary judgment, the EEOC presented affidavits from Stewart and her doctors describing how AIDS affected her daily activities. The EEOC presented no separate evidence that HIV affected her daily activities. The district court refused to consider the affidavits because the EEOC had never pleaded the presence of AIDS. Without the affidavits, there was no evidence in the record of the effect of HIV on Stewart’s daily activities. The court granted summary judgment for Lee’s, also noting that a) there was no evidence that Lee’s knew Stewart had AIDS, and b) there was a question whether she met the “qualified individual” element of the statute because of the lifting requirement. EEOC appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne and Sykes affirmed, Judge Williams dissenting. The majority started with the fundamentals. The ADA prohibits employment discrimination “against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability.” Whether an individual is disabled is an individual inquiry into whether the impairment “substantially limits” the individual’s major life activities. The Court commented that the EEOC “complicated” the inquiry by attempting to refashion its claim as an AIDS claim late in the case. The Court called it a “major alteration” of the EEOC’s case. The Court focused on the Supreme Court’s Bragdon decision and its description of the development of the disease. Noting that there are significant symptomatic differences at different stages of the disease, the Court thought that whether Stewart was HIV-positive or had AIDS was highly relevant to the case. Once the Court concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion in disallowing the affidavits, it had little difficulty agreeing with the proposition that the record was devoid of evidence of the effect of HIV on Stewart’s major life activities.

The Court went on to address, as an alternative ground for affirming summary judgment, the issue of whether Stewart was a “qualified individual.” A “qualified individual” is a person who can perform the essential functions of the job, either with or without reasonable accommodations. The Court held that Stewart was not a “qualified individual,” given her statement in her application that she could not meet the lifting requirement of the job, even with an accommodation.

Judge Williams dissented. She pointed out that HIV and AIDS are not different conditions. Rather, AIDS is simply the final stage of a single disease – HIV. Different stages of the disease are also not necessarily accompanied by different symptoms. Stewart never ceased being HIV-positive. The evidence of the effect of AIDS on Stewart’s daily activities also described the effect of HIV on her activities. Judge Williams compared it to a cancer patient progressing through different stages of the disease. She believed that the EEOC had sufficiently presented evidence that Stewart’s disease substantially limited her major life activity. She also believed that there were questions of fact with respect to the “qualified individual” issue. There was a dispute as to whether the lifting requirement was truly an essential function of the job. Stewart’s testimony that her lifting restriction was temporary also raised a question of fact with respect to her application answers. 

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

ANDREWS v. CHEVY CHASE BANK (September 24, 2008)

The Andrews refinanced their home through Chevy Chase Bank in 2004. They knew a great deal about mortgages, having taken out many for both residential and investment properties. For their 2004 mortgage, they chose a unique and flexible loan that allowed them to vary their monthly payment based on their cash flow. Chevy Chase provided preliminary disclosures, truth-in-lending disclosures at closing, and an adjustable rate rider. The Andrews believed that the minimum monthly payment and interest rate were fixed for a term of five years. In fact, the minimum monthly payment was fixed but the lender adjusted the interest rate each month. The Andrews filed a class action against Chevy Chase Bank, alleging that its disclosures were confusing, misleading, and violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). They sought statutory damages, rescission, and attorneys’ fees. The district court granted summary judgment to the Andrews on their rescission and fees claims and denied their claim for statutory damages. The court also granted class certification under FRCP 23(b)(2) and declared that all class members would have the ability to rescind. Chevy Chase appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Evans (dissenting), and Sykes reversed. The majority noted that TILA allows class actions in a damages action but whether a class can be certified in a TILA rescission action is a matter of first impression in the Seventh Circuit. The First and Fifth Circuits and the California Supreme Court have each held that it cannot. The Court first examined the rescission remedy in TILA. Unlike a statutory or actual-damages remedy, rescission requires the unwinding of a particular transaction and imposes duties on the creditor and debtor in working out the logistics of the rescission. These variations, in the Court’s view, make rescission a poor candidate for class action procedures. The panel distinguished the Supreme Court’s Yamasaki decision, which held that class relief is appropriate “[i]n the absence of a direct expression by Congress” otherwise. The Court focused on the distinction between the jurisdictional statute in Yamasaki and the private rescission process written into the TILA. The majority conceded that the presence of a cap in class action suits seeking damages, and not suits seeking rescission, can support either argument. It can be read to just mean that Congress intended no cap in rescission suits, but the majority thinks that interpretation “strains credulity” and opts instead for the explanation that Congress did not provide a class action vehicle for the rescission remedy. The majority considered and rejected the Andrews’ other arguments.

In dissent, Judge Evans first stated that the statute is unambiguous and does not present a legal bar to a rescission class action, relying on Yamasaki. He added that, even if ambiguous, the statute should be construed consistent with and supported by the language and purpose of the statute. Thus, TILA should favor the victims of the ills sought to be controlled by its terms. Judge Evans also addressed the individual nature of the unwinding process relied on by the majority. He noted that a particular class may not meet the requirements of Rule 26, but whether it does depends on Rule 26, not the TILA.
  

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