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

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

FRIZZELL v. SZABO (July 27, 2011)

Thomas Frizzell was on his way to work one November afternoon in Springfield, Illinois when Sangamon County Sheriff’s Deputy Carl Szabo noticed (he asserts) that Frizzell was not wearing a seatbelt. Szabo followed Frizzell for several minutes, until Frizzell arrived in the parking lot of his place of employment. Their accounts of what happened next differ substantially. Deputy Szabo testified that Frizzell ignored his instructions to return to his car, ran toward the door of the building, and attempted to enter the building. Frizzell asserts that he was in a hurry because he was late for work, that he did not originally realize that Szabo was talking to him, and that he wanted to clock in before talking so as not to be late. In any event, Szabo used his taser on Frizzell. When Frizzell continued to ignore orders to stay down, Szabo tased him several more times. Finally, Szabo used pepper spray and physically subdued Frizzell. Frizzell lost his job and claims that he felt weak and tired for several weeks following the incident. He did not, however, seek medical treatment. Frizzell brought suit against Szabo pursuant to §§ 1983 and 1988 for excessive force and false arrest. Szabo brought a counterclaim for battery, seeking $75,000. After trial, Judge Scott (C.D. Ill.) refused to give a nominal damages instruction. She changed her mind and gave such an instruction, however, after the jury sent back a note asking if they had to award damages if they found in plaintiff's favor. The jury found against Frizzell on the false arrest claim, found against Szabo on the counterclaim, and found in Frizzell's favor on the excessive force claim but awarded nominal damages. Chief Judge McCuskey (C.D. Ill.) denied a motion to alter the award and also denied attorney's fees. Frizzell appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Kanne and Evans and District Judge Clevert affirmed. The Court noted that a nominal damages instruction can be appropriate where: a) an officer uses both justifiable and excessive force but any injury relates to the justifiable force, b) where a jury might conclude that the evidence of injury is not credible, or c) where the degree of the injury itself does not support greater damages. The Court found two of those situations in this case. First, the jury could have concluded that the use of the taser was justifiable but the pepper spray afterwards was not -- but that Frizzell's injuries related only to the use of the taser. Second, Frizzell produced very little evidence of injury related to the pepper spray. The district court did not err in giving the instruction or in denying the motion to alter the judgment. The Court turned to the motion for attorney's fees. On that issue, the district court properly considered the difference between the amount plaintiffs sought and the actual award, the significance of the legal issue at stake, and the litigation's public purpose. The Court agreed that those factors weighed against any award of fees. First, although Frizzell never requested a specific award at trial, he did refer to Szabo's $75,000 counterclaim request as a starting point. The difference between $1.00 and anything near $75,000 is significant. Second, Szabo did not prevail on his false arrest claim and prevailed without measurable damages on his excessive force claim. He cannot claim that he prevailed on any significant legal issue. Finally, there was no public purpose served by the litigation. It was simply a private injury.

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

BOGAN v. CITY OF CHICAGO (July 6, 2011)

Nicole Evans's eight-year-old son called 911 at about 2:30 a.m. to report that his mother was being beaten. When officers arrived at her apartment, a male voice swore at them from inside. They then heard a woman scream and eventually found her on the roof. She was partially dressed, mentally distraught, and physically injured. She told the police that she wanted her boyfriend arrested. The police saw the boyfriend through an apartment window and went after him. He ran to the rear of the apartment and they followed, searching every room. Other officers had arrived at the building and advised that an African-American male was on the rear porch. The officers arrived at a door which they assumed was a door to the porch. They tried to kick it in but Sharon Bogan opened the door from the inside. She identified the boyfriend as her son. Chicago police searched the apartment but did not find boyfriend. Bogan brought suit against the City of Chicago and the officers under § 1983. She alleged a Fourth Amendment violation. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants. Judge Kennelly (N.D. Ill.) denied her motion for judgment as a matter of law. Bogan appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Ripple and Hamilton and District Judge Murphy affirmed. The Court first addressed Bogan's claim that the exigent circumstances instruction was error. The district court instructed the jury that Bogan had to prove that a reasonable officer would not have believed that a crime suspect was in the apartment. The Court noted that it had never addressed that precise question. It had, however, addressed the burden of proof question with respect to consent. In Valance, the Court concluded that a defendant asserting a consent exception to a warrantless search claim has the burden of coming forward with evidence but the plaintiff still has the ultimate burden of persuasion. The Court concluded that its rationale there also applied to the exigent circumstances exception as well. The Court acknowledged that there is a split in the circuits on the question, but countered that the split has existed for some time. The Court next addressed Bogan's argument that it was error to allow one of the officers to testify regarding his subjective beliefs during the search of Evans’s apartment. The Court recognized that the exigent circumstances exception cannot be satisfied with a police officer’s subjective view. Instead, the factfinder views the totality of the circumstances as they would have appeared to a reasonable person in the officer’s position. Here, the officer's testimony simply explained his progress and decisions made during this search. The information could have been helpful to a jury in assessing the reasonableness of his actions. Finally, the Court found no error in the district court's rejection of Bogan's request for judgment as a matter of law. There was sufficient evidence in the record from which a jury could conclude that the officers reasonably believed the boyfriend was in the apartment.

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

MATTHEWS v. WISCONSIN ENERGY CORP. (June 1, 2011)

After almost 20 years at Wisconsin Energy Corporation, Bernadine Matthews left the company in 1999. In 2003, Matthews and WEC settled a lawsuit that she had brought regarding reference requests. As part of a settlement, WEC agreed to respond to any reference requests in accordance with its policy existing at the time of the request and agreed not to say that she had been fired. In 2005, Matthews filed suit alleging that WEC breached the agreement twice in 2004. At about the same time that she filed suit, Matthews hired a consultant, Howard Schwartz, to help her find a job through a federal program for disabled persons. She gave Schwartz permission to contact third parties, including her former employers, to gather personal information. Schwartz sent a letter to WEC requesting work history confirmation and job performance comments. He advised WEC that he was assisting Matthews in her job search and that she had authorized the release of the information. One of WEC's attorneys responded. She told Schwartz that she would only provide basic work history, not performance comments. She also told him that Matthews had sued the company regarding their responses to reference requests. The district court granted WEC's motion for summary judgment and awarded attorneys’ fees. The Seventh Circuit affirmed for the most part, but reinstated the breach of contract claim based on the conversation Schwartz had with WEC's lawyer. That count was tried to a jury. The jury found for WEC and Judge Stadtmueller (E.D. Wis.) again awarded fees. Matthews appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Evans affirmed. The Court first addressed Matthews' position that the district court erred in allowing WEC to argue that she waived the provisions when she allowed Schwartz to gather personal information. It rejected both her arguments: a) WEC was not required to plead the affirmative defense of waiver because Matthews did not include the facts giving rise to the defense in her complaint (in fact, the conversation had not yet occurred), and b) the settlement agreement's writing requirement applies only to joint waivers that would affect the meaning of the contract, not to a party’s unilateral right to waive a contract term. Second, with respect to the breach and damages instruction, the Court reviewed the substantive jury instructions as a whole and found no error. Third, the Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support an instruction that the jury could find that Schwartz was acting as Matthews agent. Matthews submitted the instruction in a joint pretrial report, she put into evidence a stipulation that presumed agency, and she granted Schwartz broad authority to gather information on her behalf. Although the Court concluded that the evidence was not enough to establish agency as a matter of law, it was enough for the jury to find agency. Finally, the Court affirmed the district court’s award of almost $600,000 in attorneys fees. Since the fee shifting provision was in a contract and not a statute, the Court applied a "commercially reasonable" standard. Given that WEC paid the fees before the jury verdict and that Matthews' final settlement demand was $500,000, the fees are commercially reasonable. The Court declined to reduce the amount of fees on the ground that WEC did not prevail in every single respect or on the ground that the award created a financial hardship for Matthews.

• 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

ALDRIDGE v. FOREST RIVER, INC. (March 8, 2011)

Linda Aldridge and her husband purchased a recreational vehicle manufactured by Forest River. The RV was equipped with a step controller, a device that expands and retracts the vehicle's steps. The step controller was manufactured by Specific Cruise Systems. During a Florida vacation, Linda Aldridge fell while descending the steps. Aldridge brought suit against Forest River and SCS, alleging theories of strict liability in that the step controller retracted without warning, causing her fall. Throughout motion practice, expert discovery, and interrogatory answers, Aldridge limited her theory of liability to the allegedly defective step controller. Shortly before trial, over Aldridge’s objection, the trial court granted Forest River's motion in limine to bar any argument that the RV itself was the defective product. At trial, Aldridge attempted to amend her complaint to allege that the RV was a defective product. The court denied her request. The trial court also amended Aldridge's jury instruction that would have asked the jury to determine if the RV was defective. The jury found in favor of the two defendants. Judge Bucklo (N.D. Ill.) denied the request for a new trial, concluding that Aldridge had maintained throughout the proceedings that the step controller was the cause of her injuries and expanding the theory of liability would prejudice the defendants. Aldridge appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Kanne and Tinder and District judge Herndon affirmed. The Court noted that it reviewed all of Aldridge’s contentions -that the district court erred in granting the motion in limine, denying the motion to amend, amending the jury instruction, and denying the motion for a new trial --- under an abuse of discretion standard. Not surprisingly, the Court was not persuaded by any of Aldridge's contentions. The grant of the motion in limine conformed to the expectations of the parties and prevented surprise. The denial of the motion to amend prevented the reopening of discovery and the addition of the new liability theory during trial. The amendment of the jury instruction conformed to the evidence presented during the trial and was not misleading or improper. The denial of the motion for new trial was proper when there was a reasonable basis to support the verdict.

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

SCHANDELMEIER-BARTELS v. CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT (February 8, 2011)

Cathleen Schandelmeier-Bartels, a Caucasian, began working for the Chicago Park District in early 2006. She reported to Andrea Adams (an African-American) who reported to Alonzo Williams (an African-American) who reported to Megan McDonald (a Caucasian). [Taking the facts in a light most favorable to Smith] During the summer of 2006, Schandelmeier-Bartels was supervising summer camp. One day, she heard what she thought was the sound of flesh being struck and a child's screams. Upon investigation, she came upon a young African-American child who had been suspended from summer camp. The child's aunt was kneeling over him with her arm raised and a belt in her hand. The child was crying and had visible welts on his arm. When Schandelmeier-Bartels told the aunt to stop, the aunt and the child left. Schandelmeier-Bartels reported the incident to Adams. Adams stated that what happened was acceptable discipline in their culture. Schandelmeier-Bartels reported the incident to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and, on their advice, to the police. The next morning, Adams, in the company of the child's aunt, confronted Schandelmeier-Bartels. Adams screamed at her, criticized her for sending the police to the aunt’s house, repeated her statement about the acceptability of that type of discipline in her culture, and ordered Schandelmeier-Bartels out of her office. Adams immediately sent a memo to McDonald complaining of Schandelmeier-Bartels’ poor performance. She recounted several examples, including failure to supervise, failure to report an emergency, and poorly written incident reports. The last example she gave was the incident with the young child. The Park District fired Schandelmeier-Bartels by the end of the day. Schandelmeier-Bartels filed suit for race discrimination under Title VII. A jury awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages. Judge Coar (N.D. Ill.) granted the Park District’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. He concluded that Adams' racial animus did not affect the termination decision. Schandelmeier-Bartels appeals. The Park District cross-appealed the court's conditional denial of its motion for a new trial (although the Court pointed out that the cross-appeal was unnecessary).

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Williams, and Hamilton affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court first addressed Schandelmeier-Bartels’ appeal. It noted that the case was based on a "cat's paw" theory. There was evidence of a racial animus on the part of Schandelmeier-Bartels’ supervisor but not on the part of the decision-maker. The Court noted the lack of consistency in recent cases regarding what is necessary to bridge that causal gap. Is evidence that the biased employee exerted "singular influence" over the decision-maker required or will something less suffice? The Court concluded that it need not resolve that issue since it found that a reasonable jury could have found for Schandelmeier-Bartels even under the more stringent test. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Schandelmeier-Bartels, the jury could have found that Adams' input was decisive and that neither McDonald nor the human resources representative conducted an independent investigation. The Court thus reinstated the jury's verdict on liability. It turned to the Park District’s motion for a new trial. First, it rejected the argument that the district court should have modified a jury instruction in response to a jury question during deliberations. The objection came too late in the proceedings and, given the entirety of the instructions, there was no plain error. Second, the Court addressed the admittedly improper suggestion by plaintiff’s counsel during closing argument that an important e-mail actually had been created after the fact. Although the suggestion was without merit and even baseless, the Court noted that closing argument remarks rarely require a new trial. This remark was no different -- it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the new trial. Finally, the Court addressed the amount of the compensatory damage award. Although the Court found a rational connection between the evidence and a significant compensatory damage award, it concluded that the evidence did not support the $200,000 award. It relied on similar cases from the circuit to reduce the award to $30,000 (noting that, but for the district court judge’s retirement, it would have remanded the issue to him for redetermination).

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

THOMAS v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (May 3, 2010)

In their opinion of December 1, 2009, Judges Flaum, Wood, and Williams affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part a $4.45 million jury verdict awarded to the mother of a young man who died while in custody of the Cook County Jail (refer to the panel opinion and to my post). Cook County and the individual defendants petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc. With respect to the petition of the individual defendants, the panel unanimously voted to deny rehearing and no judge in regular active service requested a vote on the petition en banc. With respect to the petition of the County, however, three judges voted to grant the rehearing en banc with respect to the issue of damages. In consideration of the petition and the votes to grant the rehearing, the panel amended its opinion.

In their amended opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood, and Williams refined their analysis of the damages issue and provided some general prophylactic guidance regarding verdict forms. The panel reaffirmed its original decision upholding the verdict, notwithstanding the confusion apparent in the instructions and the verdict form.

Judge Sykes, joined by Judges Posner and Tinder, dissented from the denial of the County's petition for rehearing en banc. The principal claims in the case sought compensation for a single injury -- Norman Smith's suffering and death while in the custody of the Cook County Jail. Because liability is joint and several, the jury should not have been asked to assess damages by claim or by defendant. The dissent criticizes the panel for approving the district court's discretion to choose between the "ceiling" and the "cumulative" approaches to the confusion verdict. In the dissent's view, neither approach is supported by the Circuit's precedent. Finally, Judge Sykes is critical of the panel's reliance on the general proposition and presumption that jurors follow their instructions. Given the "bewildering hodgepodge" of instructions and the backwards verdict form, the Court cannot have any confidence that the jury acted properly. Judge Sykes would have granted the petition to address the treatment of the damage award.

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

HAPPEL v. WALMART STORES (April 19, 2010)

Heidi Happel was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the early 1990s. In 1993, her primary care physician prescribed a pain reliever for an unrelated condition. In fact, she was allergic to the medication. Her physician phoned the prescription to a Walmart pharmacy were Happel typically filled her prescriptions. Despite the fact that Walmart's computer system and Happel's husband both alerted the pharmacist to her allergy, he filled the prescription anyway. Happel immediately went into anaphylactic shock. Her general health quickly deteriorated. She and her husband sued Walmart -- Happel brought a negligence claim and her husband brought a loss of society claim. The Happels listed the original diagnosing physician as a witness but did not disclose him as an expert or tender an expert report. They did list a neurologist as their expert. Just before trial, the Happels attempted to add the diagnosing physician as an expert. The district court denied their request. The court also excluded much of the neurologist’s testimony. In its instructions, the court included the loss of society claim within the negligence claim. It then submitted to the jury a verdict form that contained only a single line for an award of damages. The jury awarded $465,400. The court reduced the award by $150,000 because of a settlement before trial with the primary care physician. The Happels appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams, and Sykes reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed the expert issues. With respect to the diagnosing physician, the Court noted that the Happels only addressed his qualifications – but that was not the basis for the lower court's exclusion. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's excluding the diagnosing physician as an expert when plaintiffs failed to disclose him as such during discovery. With respect to the neurologist, the district court excluded his testimony regarding Happel's multiple sclerosis because he had very little experience with multiple sclerosis. The Court found no abuse of discretion. With respect to the damages verdict, the Court noted that the lower court treated the loss of society claim as simply one aspect of the overarching negligence claim. Although the court instructed the jury to return separate verdicts for each of the plaintiffs, the verdict form it provided had only a single line for a damages award. The Court concluded that the jury instructions and the form of verdict were ambiguous. As a result, it is impossible to determine Although it was error to give the instruction and use the form, the Court noted that it still had to find prejudice before granting a new trial. It found prejudice in reference to the set-off amounts. Each individual plaintiff had settled with the primary care physician for $75,000 each. If the jury intended to award each of the plaintiffs more than $75,000, the $150,000 ($75,000 from each) set off is correct. However, if the jury's intent was to award either plaintiff less than $75,000, that plaintiff's set-off would be capped at the amount of the award and the total set-off would then be less than $150,000. Having found prejudice, the court reversed for new trial on damages.

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

McBRIDE v. CSX TRANSPORTATION (March 16, 2010)

Robert McBride was a locomotive engineer for CSX Transportation. After several years as a long-distance engineer, McBride expressed an interest to transfer to a job where he would work more regular hours with fewer nights away from home. In April 2004, he went on a qualifying run with a supervising engineer. Much of the ten-hour shaft involved switching, the process of adding and dropping individual cars from the locomotive. The switching process requires heavy use of the manual brakes. Toward the end of his shift, while operating the brakes, McBride experienced extreme pain in his hand. He has since undergone two surgeries and physical therapy but still experiences pain and numbness. He filed an action for negligence under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. At trial, McBride offered an instruction on causation that would instruct the jury that defendant’s negligence had to play "a part - no matter how small" in bringing about the injury. CSX offered an instruction that included a requirement that defendant’s negligence be a "proximate cause" of the injury. The court used the McBride instruction. The jury found in McBride's favor. CSX appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first noted that courts have "grappled" with the proper causation standard under FELA since the Act was passed. The Act provides that the injury must result "in whole or in part" from the employer's negligence. The Court noted that early cases did not conclude that the "in whole or in part of" language eliminated the common-law proximate cause requirement. Later cases, however, including the Supreme Court's decision in Rogers, suggested that a less stringent standard of causation should apply under FELA. Many courts of appeals interpreted Rogers as relaxing the standard of causation. The Supreme Court addressed the question again in Sorrell. Although the majority skirted the question, Justice Souter's concurring opinion stated that Rogers did not eliminate the proximate cause requirement. Justice Ginsburg's opinion, concurring in the judgment, stated her view that the causation standard in FELA cases is more relaxed than in tort litigation generally. Although the Court concluded that Justice Souter's position is a plausible one, it declined to adopt it. It noted that the majority in Sorrell did not even address the question, other statements of the Supreme Court have suggested a broader reading, and all other circuit courts that have addressed the issue have concluded that Rogers adopted a relaxed standard of probable cause. Finally, the Court noted that Congress is well aware of the decisions adopting a relaxed standard of causation and could clarify the FELA. It therefore found no error in the lower court's instruction.

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

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

STAUB v. PROCTOR HOSPITAL (March 25, 2009)

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

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

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

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
• Share Link