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

LEWIS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (December 21, 2009)

Donna Lewis was an officer in the tactical unit of the Chicago Police Department in 2002 when Lt. Terrence Williams became her supervisor. When she volunteered for a special security detail in Washington DC, Williams took her off the list. Lewis filed a grievance, alleging that it was a gender-based decision. She claims that she was the victim of several instances of retaliation after she filed the grievance. She filed an EEOC charge concerning both the security detail and retaliation. She alleges that the very next day Williams directed her to assist a narcotics team operation. During the operation, another officer accidentally struck her with a sledgehammer, breaking her neck. She is now on permanent disability. She filed suit. Although the court originally granted summary judgment to the defendants, the Seventh Circuit reversed her gender discrimination claim against Williams and the City and the retaliation claim against the City. At trial, a jury found in favor of the defendants. The court denied Lewis' motion for new trial. Lewis appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Evans and Sykes and District Judge Simon affirmed. Lewis raised four categories of error: jury instructions, evidentiary errors, prejudicial closing argument and insufficient evidence. With respect to the seven instruction challenges, the Court found the instructions to be proper or that Lewis either did not object or waived her objection. Likewise, with respect to Lewis' several evidentiary objections, the Court found no error. Specifically, the Court agreed that allowing Lewis to testify regarding the incident in which she suffered a broken neck at the hands of a fellow police officer would have been highly inflammatory. She was allowed to present evidence that she was diverted to a dangerous assignment. The Court also rejected her arguments with respect to the defendants' closing argument and the sufficiency of the evidence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

CONSUMER PRODUCTS RESEARCH & DESIGN v. JENSEN (July 16, 2009)

Consumer Products Research & Design ("CPRD") holds a patent for a wireless smoke detector. CPRD entered into contracts with two companies owned, respectively, by a father and his son. One company, owned by the father, agreed to develop and market the product. The other, owned by the son, was responsible for its manufacturing. Unhappy with of the relationship, CPRD filed a complaint alleging fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. A jury awarded over $700,000 in damages. Defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum and Rovner affirmed. The Court rejected the defendants’ first argument, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, because none of the defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law after the verdict. The defendants did move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 (a) after the liability phase of the bifurcated trial. The Court held, however, that a party's failure to comply with Rule 50 (b) after the verdict forfeits any claim on appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court also rejected defendants’ jury instruction argument. The defendants accepted the jury instructions without complaint in the court below and forfeited their objection. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

STAUB v. PROCTOR HOSPITAL (March 25, 2009)

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

MALONE v. RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE CO. (March 12, 2009)

Gordon Beeler disappeared in January of 1998, leaving behind a wife of 30 years, four children, a business partner and $2.6 million in life insurance policies. A trust was the beneficiary of the policies. The insurance companies denied benefits in 2003, and again in 2005, citing evidence that Beeler may have been alive. The beneficiaries brought suit against the insurance companies, seeking death benefits and punitive damages. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurance companies on the punitive damages claim. The breach of contract claim was tried to a jury. The trustee presented evidence that Beeler had been missing since the date of his disappearance, that the family had conducted numerous investigations into his disappearance, and that he had not been in communication with his family or friends since the day of his disappearance. The insurance companies presented evidence of a troubled family situation, a strained marriage, and witnesses who claimed to have seen Beeler after the date of his disappearance. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The district court denied the trustee’s Motion for a New Trial. The trustee appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Williams and Sykes affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for a new trial. On the punitive damages issue, the Court concluded that there was a good-faith dispute over coverage. Under Indiana law, a good-faith coverage dispute precludes punitive damages. The Court affirmed the district court. With respect to the death benefits claims, however, the Court found that the district court had erred. In Indiana, a claimant may prove an insured’s death in two different ways. It can present evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the insured is, in fact, dead. Alternatively, it can seek a common law presumption of death by showing that the individual has been "inexplicably absent" for seven years, that the individual has not communicated with close family and friends and that the individual cannot be found despite diligent search. That presumption can be rebutted by proof of facts inconsistent with the presumption. The Court found two errors in the district court's approach to the trial. First, the district court erred in instructing the jury that "inexplicably absent" meant that Beeler’s absence was "unexplained by circumstances other than those suggesting death." The Court concluded that the presumption arises when the plaintiff proves a seven-year absence, a lack of communication, and an inability after diligent search to find the person. Any evidence offered to explain the disappearance is relevant only to rebutting the presumption. Second, the Court found error in the special verdict form. The jury was asked three questions: whether the plaintiff raised the presumption of death, whether the defendants rebutted the presumption of death, and whether plaintiff proved that Beeler was, in fact, dead. The special verdict form instructed the jury to conclude its deliberations if it answered no to the first question. The jury did answer no to the first question, it did conclude its deliberations, and it never considered whether plaintiff proved that Beeler was, in fact, that. The Court conceded that either of the two errors, standing alone, might not have required a reversal. Considered together, however, they amounted to reversible error.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks