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

HICKS v. AVERY DREI, LLC (August 17, 2011)

Chance Felling owned and operated Avery Drei, LLC, a hotel management company. In 2006, Avery Drei was constructing a hotel near Indianapolis, Indiana. Lisa Hicks began working as a security guard at the hotel construction site in July of 2006. The hotel opened in October and she became a front desk clerk. During her stint as a security guard, Felling paid her in cash. Once she became a desk clerk, she received her regular wages by check. After Hicks' employment was terminated, she brought suit against Avery and Felling. She sought overtime wages and accrued vacation pay. The case languished for several years until February of 2010, when the district court set a June 2010 trial date. In February, Hicks asked Felling and Avery to supplement certain discovery responses. The defendants failed to respond until ordered to do so by the court in May. Then, they supplemented their answers to the requests identified by Hicks and also supplemented their response to an interrogatory that asked them to identify all cash payments to Hicks. Their original response identified seven cash payments, all while Hicks was working as a security guard. Their supplemental response added six additional payments, all while Hicks was working as a desk clerk. Hicks moved to bar any evidence of the additional payments, claiming the late notice was “trial by ambush.” The district court denied the request. At trial, Judge Magnus-Stinson (S.D. Ind.) granted a directed verdict on the vacation pay claims and on the security guard part of her overtime claim. The jury returned a verdict against Hicks on the desk clerk part of her overtime claim. At Hicks' request, the court waived transcription fees relating to the overtime claim but refused to waive with respect to that portion of the record relating to the vacation pay claim. Hicks appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Cudahy (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment), Flaum, and Kanne affirmed. On appeal, Hicks challenges the directed verdict on the vacation pay claim, challenges the partial directed verdict on the security guard overtime claim, and challenges the district court's refusal to exclude the evidence of additional cash payments. The Court concluded that the vacation pay claim was frivolous. Hicks admitted that she and Felling had an agreement that she would earn vacation time only after she had worked for a year. Her contention that Indiana law requires pro-rata vacation pay from day one in the absence of a written company policy to the contrary is simply wrong. Any agreement to the contrary, which is admittedly present here, is sufficient. The Court turned to the cash payment evidence. It noted that it would normally review such a ruling for abuse of discretion. Here, however, Hicks did not provide transcripts of the argument or ruling on the motion in limine. Without a meaningful basis on which to review the ruling, the Court concluded that Hicks forfeited her challenge. It also chose not to conduct a full plain error review, since it could identify no prejudice -- no extraordinary circumstances -- no miscarriage of justice. The Court turned to the security guard overtime claim. In order to prevail, Hicks had to prove that her employer was covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court concluded that she was "engaged in commerce" while a desk clerk, and therefore covered by the Act, but was not while working as a security guard. Hicks argued that she was covered because Felling's operation of several businesses made him an "enterprise engaged in commerce" under the Act. The test for enterprise coverage is that the businesses must be engaged in related activities, under a unified operation, have a common business purpose, and engage in $500,000 of business annually. The district court found that Hicks’ proffered common business purpose -- a profit motive -- did not satisfy the Act's requirements. The Court noted that Hicks advanced a different theory on appeal. It found that argument forfeited. With respect to the profit motive argument, the Court agreed with the district court that it was not enough to amount to enterprise coverage. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the jury should have been allowed to decide whether Felling Hotels had earnings above the $500,000 threshold because Felling testified that it was possible. Felling Hotels was not a defendant, Felling Hotels was not her employer, and Hicks presented no affirmative evidence of its gross revenue.

Judge Cudahy thought that Felling’s admission against interest that Felling Hotel could have had revenue exceeding $500,000 should have been enough to avoid the directed verdict. But since Hicks never explained how Felling Hotels being subject to the FLSA related to the defendants’ liability, he concurred in the result.

• 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

GROSS v. TOWN OF CICERO (August 27, 2010)

For several years after Clarence Gross retired as a Cicero police officer, he served in a number of appointed positions in the Town's government. The Town President appointed him Chairman of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. As Chairman, Gross oversaw the hiring of the Town's police officers. Gross admits that he hired several officers that he deemed unqualified because he was directed to do so by the Town President. Rhonda Gross, Clarence's daughter, also served as a Cicero police officer during this time. She complained to Gross that she and other female police officers were the victims of sexual harassment. Gross approached the Town President on several occasions to discuss the harassment. On each occasion, she deflected his attempt and promised to address it later. Rhonda filed an EEOC charge. The EEOC found substantial evidence that she was the subject of sexual harassment -- the Town settled. After Rhonda filed her charge, Gross was removed from his various appointments. He complained to the Town's attorney that he was owed compensation. When he became involved as a potential witness in litigation against the Town, he claims that the attorney told him he would not get his compensation until the other litigation was resolved. Gross brought suit pursuant to § 1983 against the Town, the President, a successor President, and the Town’s attorney. He alleged First Amendment free-speech violations. The Town brought counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Judge Darrah (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants on Gross' claim, granted summary judgment to Gross on the unjust enrichment claim, but granted summary judgment on liability to the Town on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The court ultimately awarded over $300,000 on the claim after a bench trial, representing Gross' entire salary for the years in question.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Williams, and Tinder affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The Court first addressed Gross' First Amendment retaliation claims, specifically the first prong of the retaliation inquiry -- whether his speech was constitutionally protected. Three different episodes of retaliation were alleged: a) his sexual harassment complaints on behalf of Rhonda to the Town President, b) his instruction to Rhonda to file an EEOC charge, and c) his conversations with the plaintiffs’ lawyers in another case against the Town. The Court concluded that none of the episodes constituted protected speech: a) his complaints to the Town President about sexual harassment (to the extent there was even any actual content to the speech, as opposed to a mere request to discuss) were not matters of public concern but merely a private grievance, b) any encouragement to Rhonda to file the EEOC charge was not speech on a matter of public concern but, again, a mere private matter (the record also contains no evidence that any defendant was aware of this speech, precluding a finding of causation), and c) there is no evidence in the record to establish that a conversation with plaintiffs' lawyers in another case could constitute protected speech. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's finding in favor of the defendants on Gross’ First Amendment claim. The Court next addressed the Town’s breach of fiduciary duty claim. The district court noted that an Illinois statute sets standards by which municipalities’ Police Boards must evaluate appointed police officers. The court held that the statute created a fiduciary duty on the part of Police Board members to exercise independent judgment. The Court disagreed. The statute does not refer to fiduciary duties and the Court was reluctant to create one. Instead, the statute merely grants authority and establishes rules for the exercise of that authority. Although it concluded that the statute did not create a duty, the Court did recognize that Gross was subject to a duty of loyalty owed by all public officials. Relying on the standard the Illinois Supreme Court stated in upholding a criminal conviction, the Court ruled that there was sufficient evidence (barely) in the record for a factfinder to conclude that Gross violated that duty. A factfinder could conclude that Gross engaged in a quid pro quo arrangement with the Town President by which he protected his and his daughter’s jobs in return for appointing unqualified police officers selected by the President. The Court remanded for additional factual findings on that issue. Its conclusion on liability did not necessitate any analysis of the damage award. Nevertheless, the Court commented that the district court’s total salary forfeiture was not correct, unless Gross was breaching his duty during his entire tenure, a conclusion not supported by the current record.

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

HABITAT EDUCATION CENTER v. U.S. FOREST SERVICE (June 29, 2010)

The federal government has been managing over 1,000,000 acres of forest in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin for almost 100 years. In the last eight years, the U.S. Forest Service has proposed 17 different timber sale projects. Habitat Education Center has administratively challenged almost every project. One of those projects is the Twentymile sale, announced in 2004, covering almost 9,000 acres. The Center argued that the sale, particularly in conjunction with a prior sale on immediately adjacent property, would have a negative impact on wildlife. The Forest Service authorized the project in February of 2007 over the Center's objections. The Center's administrative appeal was also unsuccessful. They filed suit in June 2007, contending that the Forest Service' environmental impact statement failed to consider the cumulative impacts of "past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions," in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In November of 2008, just before argument on cross motions for summary judgment, the Forest Service announced another sale, the Twin Ghost project, on immediately adjacent property. Judge Adelman (E.D. Wis.) asked for supplemental briefing but ultimately concluded that the project was not "reasonably foreseeable" under NEPA at the time of the Twentymile project authorization and granted summary judgment to the Forest Service. The Center appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Wood and District Judge St. Eve affirmed. The Court first addressed the Forest Service's argument that the Center forfeited any claim with respect to the Twin Ghost project by not raising it in the administrative process. Instead of addressing the Center's possible forfeiture, the Court concluded that the Forest Service waived the forfeiture argument by not raising it sufficiently in the district court in the supplemental briefing. On the merits, the Court noted that several of its sister circuits (specifically citing cases from the 1st, 3rd, 9th, and 11th) have held that the effects of a contemplated project need not be discussed if there is not yet a meaningful basis for assessing the impact of the project. The Court concurred with that approach. At the time the Twentymile project was approved, the Service had not even identified the goals of the Twin Ghost project. Of course, as the Court noted, the Twin Ghost project assessment must include a thorough analysis of the cumulative effects of the Twin Ghost and Twentymile projects. Any negative cumulative effects can be addressed during that process. Finally, the Court did concede that the better practice would have been for the Service to disclose the current state of contemplated future projects, even if a thorough analysis was not possible.  

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

UNITED STATES v. 5443 SUFFIELD TERRACE (June 9, 2010)

Customs officials first discovered Richard Connors smuggling Cuban cigars in 1996. They confiscated over 1100 cigars from him as he attempted to enter the United States. He continued to smuggle. He continued to get caught. On March 15, 1997, local police confiscated more cigars from Connors' home at 5443 Suffield Terrace in Skokie, Illinois. They turned them over to federal officials the following day. Finally, in late 1999, federal officials again seized hundreds of cigars from the Suffield Terrace home. Connors was convicted of several offenses. On March 14, 2002, the United States filed a civil forfeiture action to seize Connors' house. They alleged two grounds: that the house was paid for with proceeds of the smuggling operation and that the house was used to facilitate the smuggling operation. Connors moved to dismiss, arguing that the five-year statute of limitations began to run in 1996, when the United States first discovered his smuggling activity. Judge Gettleman (N.D. IL) denied the motion and granted summary judgment to the United States. Connors appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne, and Rovner affirmed. The civil forfeiture statute requires that an action be filed within five years "after the time when the alleged offense was discovered." The Court found the meaning of "alleged offense" unambiguous. It refers to the offense that gives rise to the right of forfeiture. Where there are several such offenses, nothing in the statute prohibits a forfeiture action when at least one of the offenses falls within the five-year period of limitations. The civil forfeiture action in this case is based on the March 15, 1997 offense. The action is therefore not time-barred. On the merits, the Court found that Connors waived the argument that he had additional sources of income not considered by the court because he failed to raise it properly below.

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

TRUHLAR v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (April 12, 2010)

Kenneth Truhlar was injured while working as a letter carrier for the United States Postal Service. He was required to periodically submit a form to the Department of Labor (DOL) in order to collect his partial disability payments. On the forms, he reported that he had no other job during the period for which he was claiming disability. In fact, Truhlar was a bass guitarist in a rock band and earned several thousand dollars during the period in question. The Service suspended him -- his union filed a grievance and, when it was denied, appealed. After the Service completed its investigation and concluded that Truhlar violated several rules, it notified Truhlar of its decision to terminate his employment. Again, the union grieved -- again, it appealed the denial of the grievance. Meanwhile, the DOL sought repayment of the benefits he had already received and a federal prosecutor considered criminal charges. The union and the Service agreed to a stay of the grievances pending the disposition of those actions. Truhlar appealed the DOL forfeiture order. The prosecutor decided not to prosecute. When a newly appointed postmaster inquired into the status of the pending grievances, she was provided with the Service's and the Department's reports concluding that Truhlar had knowingly failed to report outside income. She was also told, though incorrectly, that Truhlar had not appealed the forfeiture order. The postmaster met with the union representative and passed that accurate information to him. Based on the internal investigation, the Department's investigation, the prosecutor's rationale for declining to prosecute, and his belief that the DOL proceedings were complete, the union representative decided to withdraw the grievances. The Service terminated Truhlar's employment. A few months later, the Department's forfeiture order was reversed. The Appeals Board decided that the form did not put Truhlar on notice that he had to report his bass guitarist earnings. Truhlar filed suit under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. He alleged that the Service violated the collective bargaining agreement by terminating him without cause and alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation by not pursuing the grievances. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Truhlar appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Evans affirmed. In a § 301 "hybrid" action, a plaintiff must prevail on both his claims against his employer and his union. Here, the district court concluded that the Service did not violate the collective bargaining agreement. Since that conclusion was enough to grant summary judgment to the Service, the district court did not address Truhlar's claim against the union. On appeal, the union renewed its argument that it did not breach its duty of fair representation. Truhlar never responded to that argument, explaining at oral argument that he did not think he was required to address a position he had not lost below. The Court explained that an appellee may defend the district court's judgment on any ground raised below. The Court concluded that Truhlar had therefore forfeited any opposition to the union's position on fair representation. Notwithstanding that conclusion, the Court reviewed Truhlar's district court submissions on the topic and concluded that Truhlar would lose on the merits as well. Truhlar's burden was to show that the union's actions were arbitrary and discriminatory or in bad faith. The Court noted that the union representative met with the postmaster, reviewed the internal investigation, reviewed the Department's report and decision, and considered the actions of the prosecutor before reaching his decision to withdraw the grievances. Far from arbitrary, the Court considered the representative's decision rational.

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

WELLPOINT, INC. V. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (AUGUST 7, 2009)

In 1996, WellPoint and John Hancock Life Insurance Company (Hancock) entered into a complex business transaction. The transaction was documented with a series of contracts, each of which contained an express arbitration clause. A dispute arose. WellPoint and Hancock both demanded arbitration. Pursuant to the arbitration procedure agreed upon, each appointed its own party arbitrator. When the party arbitrator’s could not agree on a third arbitrator, the AAA made the appointment, again as provided in the agreements. After over two years of extensive discovery and procedural disputes, WellPoint's party arbitrator resigned. Hancock objected but the panel, including Hancock's party arbitrator, approved the resignation. Hancock again objected when WellPoint proposed specific names for the vacancy. Hancock's party arbitrator proposed a compromise that WellPoint accepted -- and Hancock supported. Under the proposal, the panel suggested several candidates from which WellPoint could choose. Again, Hancock objected but also agreed that the replacement arbitrator met the prerequisites for service. The panel awarded WellPoint almost $30 million. WellPoint filed a petition to confirm the award -- Hancock cross-petitioned to vacate the award. The district court confirmed the award. Hancock appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple and Wood affirmed. The Court rejected Hancock's argument that the panel "exceeded their powers" under § 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act when they selected a third arbitrator in a manner not provided for in the agreement. Although the Court conceded that the party's agreements did not provide a process for filling a vacancy, it noted that § 5 of the Act does. Section 5 expressly provides that a district court can appoint an arbitrator in the event of a vacancy were no provision exists in the party's agreement. Given the express remedy in § 5, the Court was unwilling to interpret the act in a way that would allow a party to forgo its § 5 remedy but get the same relief under § 10 after the arbitration is complete -- and it loses. Hancock's failure to avail itself of the remedy under § 5 amounts to a forfeiture of its challenge to the third arbitrator.

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