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

PICKETT v. SHERIDAN HEALTH CARE CENTER (December 15, 2011)

Danielle Pickett’s retaliation claim against her former employer, Sheridan Health Care Center, was tried to a jury. The jury awarded her $15,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed (opinion and intheiropinion). Pickett had agreed to pay her attorney a $7,500 flat fee and a 1/3 contingent fee. She also agreed to assign to him any statutory fee. Her attorney sought statutory fees of approximately $130,000. Judge Pallmeyer (N.D. Ill.) rejected the attorney's claimed $592/hour market rate. Relying on the CPI and the Laffey Matrix (neither of which had been mentioned or relied on by the parties) and the fact that the attorney was entitled to the flat fee and the contingent fee on top of the statutory fee, she set a market rate of $400. Based on that rate, she awarded $70,000 in fees. Although she originally awarded almost $10,000 to the law firm that prepared the fee petition, she later reversed herself and denied those fees on the grounds that Pickett's lawyer had not be prepaid them. Plaintiff appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Kanne, and Wood vacated and remanded with respect to the principal fee award and reinstated the fees to the firm that prepared the fee petition. Under Title VII, the prevailing party can recover attorney's fees. Fees are generally calculated by multiplying the time reasonably incurred by a reasonable rate. When the attorney seeking fees has no set hourly rate because he typically works on a contingent basis, courts should determine the rate based upon what similarly experienced attorneys charge. Here, the Court concluded that the district court was influenced by the fact that Pickett's attorney was receiving the flat, contingent, and statutory fees. It was error for her to do so. The Supreme Court has adopted the lodestar approach (hours times rate) notwithstanding its shortcomings and has recognized that lawyers can receive both contractual and statutory fees. The district court is not allowed to reduce the statutory fee recovery simply because the client also agreed to a contingent fee (and, for that matter, a flat fee). Since the Court was not sure how much the contingent fee agreement contributed to the hourly rate reduction, it remanded for further consideration. The Court did agree that the evidence supporting the almost $600 an hour rate was lacking. However, the district court erred in disregarding the rates offered in affidavits of other practicing attorneys on the ground that they did not perform contingent work -- and erred when it reduced the award because of a lack of evidence of prior fee awards in contested cases. With respect to the district court's use of the consumer price index and the Laffey Matrix, the Court did not consider the use of either to be a problem. However, the district court should have given the parties an opportunity to address the use of those matters. Ultimately, the Court emphasized that it was not rejecting the $400 rate approved by the district court. It was just unsure how the court reached that number. Finally, the Court reinstated the fee award to the firm that prepared the fee petition. The only reason the district court gave for reversing its prior award was that the firm had not been prepaid. There is no such requirement. Particularly since the district court approved the award in the first instance, it does not appear that the court had any issue with the reasonableness of the fee.

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

BROWN v. COLUMBIA SUSSEX CORP. (December 15, 2011) 

James Piggee runs the organization Giving Education Meaningful Substance. For two decades, he has organized an annual trip that exposes African-American high school students to predominately black universities. The destination for the Spring 2008 trip was Louisiana and Texas. The group reserved 41 rooms at the Marriott Hotel in Baton Rouge Louisiana. Within a few days, the hotel canceled the reservation. Piggee, the students, and the chaperones (268 in all) filed suit against Marriott, alleging that the cancellation was racially motivated. In the district court, Marriott served discovery requests on the plaintiffs in December of 2009. Several deadlines came and went. A motion to compel was granted and ignored. The district court sanctioned the plaintiffs for their delay. Finally, almost a year after the discovery was served, Chief Judge Simon (N.D. Ind.) dismissed the case pursuant to Rule 37(b) with respect to the 200 or so plaintiffs that had not responded to discovery. Plaintiffs appealed.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Flaum, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction. After the original appeal, the Court ordered briefing on jurisdiction since it appeared that the district court had not entered a final judgment. During the time for briefing, the appellant's returned to the district court and obtained a Rule 54(b) final judgment -- but did not file a new notice of appeal. In FirsTier, the Supreme Court concluded that a notice of appeal was timely when it followed a district court's decision but preceded its entry of judgment. In that case, however, the only thing that followed the notice was the actual entry of the judgment. Here, the plaintiffs had to move for and support a Rule 54 judgment. The Court identified two alternate readings of FirsTier. Under one reading, a premature notice of appeal is allowed if it is followed only by the ministerial task of entering judgment. Under another reading, a premature notice of appeal is allowed if, with respect to the claim being appealed, the only thing remaining is the entry of the judgment. The Court concluded that the latter interpretation was the correct one and held the notice timely. On the merits, the Court seemed to have little difficulty in finding the dismissal sanction, although serious, not inappropriate. Plaintiffs’ counsel missed numerous discovery deadlines, violated court orders, did not have the resources to handle the case, had not even spoken with many of the plaintiffs, and was warned that the court had given its "final extension." No more is necessary.

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

 EGAN MARINE CORP. v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK (November 23, 2011)

Egan Marine Corporation operates vessels on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Its sister company, Service Welding and Shipbuilding operates the shipyard. Egan and SWS obtained insurance from the Great American Insurance Company against an event that exposed either to specific federal statutory environmental liability. The policy covered each of the companies’ vessels up to $5 million. In January of 2005, an Egan tugboat was pushing an Egan barge filled with slurry oil up the canal when the barge exploded. The Coast Guard designated the barge as the source of the discharge and notified Egan that it could be held financially responsible for all damages. Great American hired Egan and SWS to conduct spill management, cleanup, and salvage operations. The companies agreed to provide those services at cost. A dispute arose between the parties regarding Egan's billing methodology. The parties also were at odds over the amount of coverage. Great American took the position that the barge was the only vessel involved in the incident and the coverage was therefore limited to $5 million. Egan took the position that both the barge and the tugboat were involved and that coverage extended to $10 million. The Coast Guard sent a letter on May 18, 2005 indicating that the emergency response was complete except for oil remaining in the canal, which it directed Egan to remove. The Illinois EPA filed suit for an injunction, civil penalties, and costs. Great American paid for Egan's expense for some time, but then stopped. The United States also brought suit, seeking removal costs and civil penalties. The suit names both the tugboat and the barge as responsible. Egan and SWS brought suit against Great American alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing. Great American counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment. On summary judgment, Judge Kennelly (N.D. Ill.) ruled that Great American satisfied its policy obligations with respect to the barge but that it breached the policy by not honoring the $5 million coverage for the tugboat. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the only damages from the breached contract were unpaid defense costs, that Great American did not breach the contract by disputing and refusing to pay the total amounts claimed by Egan for the recovery efforts, that Great American breached the contract by refusing any coverage after the Coast Guard letter, and that Great American did not breach its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Both parties appeal.

In their opinion, Seven Circuit Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Sykes affirmed. First, the Court concluded that Great American's refusal to pay the amounts claimed by Egan on the ground that they did not represent Egan's "costs," was not clear error. Egan had refused an opportunity to provide additional justification for its claims to Great American and the record evidence did not support a conclusion that they were entitled to the money claimed. Second, the Court also found no error in the district court's conclusion that coverage extended beyond the date of the Coast Guard letter but did not extend beyond the date of the Illinois EPA's lawsuit, in which there was no mention of any ongoing threat of contamination. Third, the Court concluded that New York law does not recognize an independent breach of good faith claim that is based on the same evidence as a breach of contract claim. Fourth, the Court agreed that the tugboat was entitled to coverage in that it was a "vessel" under federal pollution statutes, that it was the barge's sole means of propulsion, and that it therefore posed a substantial threat of discharge. Finally, the Court concluded that Egan incurred defense costs in the Illinois EPA suit as part of its exposure under federal and state pollution statutes. The defense costs were therefore covered under the policy.

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

G.G. v. GRINDLE (November 23, 2011)

Nine female South Berwyn School District 100 students brought suit against their school principal, Karen Grindle, for failing to prevent the students' sexual abuse by their band teacher. Details of the abuse were presented at trial. Each student's story was different. One student, G.G., testified about two incidents of sexual contact when she was 10 years old. One involved the touching of her breast, the other the touching of her thigh. Other students testified of more prolonged and egregious conduct. G.G.'s counselor testified that the experience was very traumatic, that G.G. was diagnosed with post-dramatic stress disorder as a result of the abuse, and that the events caused severe emotional damage. A jury found in plaintiffs' favor and awarded compensatory damages ranging from $100,000-$750,000 per plaintiff. They awarded G.G. $250,000. The jury also awarded a collective $100,000 in punitive damages. After the jury award, all plaintiffs except G.G. settled. Grindle filed a motion for remittitur, arguing that the evidence did not support the verdict. She also asked that the punitive damages be stricken. Judge Hibbler (N.D. Ill.) denied the motion. Grindle appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Kanne, and Wood affirmed. The Court first addressed the compensatory damage award. The Court applied a three-part test -- whether the verdict is monstrously excessive, whether there is a rational connection between the evidence and the verdict, and whether the amount of the verdict is comparable to other cases. Since neither party submitted circuit cases for comparison and since the monstrously excessive prong of the test is more properly considered within the rational connection prong, the Court focused on that prong. It rejected Grindle's contention that the two "innocuous" events testified to by G.G. did not support the verdict. First, it is not the number or nature of the events but, rather, the impact on the plaintiff that should be considered. G.G. was the youngest victim and suffered severe emotional harm. Second, the fact that the jury distinguished between each of the students and awarded damages amounts along a fairly large spectrum demonstrates their careful consideration of the individual evidence. Third, the Court rejected Grindle's contention that other factors (her drug use, sexual experimentation, attempted suicide) led to G.G.'s troubles. The Court noted the substantial evidence tying G.G.'s troubles back to the abuse. Finally, the Court did note that the damage award was at the lower end of the spectrum for the nine students. The verdict was reasonable in light of the evidence. The Court next considered the punitive damage award and whether it was excessive. It rejected Grindle's argument that the award was excessive because she was not directly involved in the abuse and jury must have been focusing on the abuse. There is evidence in the record that she knew or should have known of the abuse and did nothing. That is enough for a punitive damages award.

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

ECHO, INC. v. TIMBERLAND MACHINES & IRRIGATION (October 25, 2011)

Between 2004 and 2008, Timberland Machines & Irrigation distributed assorted outdoor power equipment for Echo in New England. On October 21 of 2008, Echo gave Timberland a sixty-day termination notice. Echo alleges that it actually made the decision to terminate Timberland in August of that year, for financial reasons. In September, Echo met with Lawn Equipment Parts Company to discuss giving it the New England region. Lawn Equipment was already a Echo distributor in another region. Echo eventually awarded the New England region to Lawn Equipment. Depending on the calculation, Echo accounted for between 30% and just over 50% of Timberland’s total sales. Echo brought suit against Timberland for breach of contract and for unpaid sums owed. A few weeks later, Timberland filed a separate suit in the same federal district against Echo and Lawn Equipment. It asserted Connecticut Franchise Act claims against Echo and claims for tortious interference, unjust enrichment and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act against Lawn Equipment. The cases were consolidated before Judge Kocoras (N.D. Ill.), who granted summary judgment against Timberland on all counts after striking portions of the affidavit of Timberland’s president. Timberland appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Flaum, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court first addressed the affidavit, which the district court struck on the grounds that it constituted undisclosed expert testimony. The purpose of the affidavit was to establish that Timberland met the definition of a franchise under the Connecticut Franchise Act. Judicial interpretations of the statute hold that a party is a franchisee of another party if more than half of its business comes as a result of that relationship. The affidavit was designed to support a calculation that met the half-of-its-business test. The Court was not impressed. Of the four points of calculation stricken from the affidavit, the Court: a) agreed that one should be stricken, even if not expert testimony, because it was unsupported by any analysis, b) concluded that two points no longer mattered once the first was stricken, and c) disagreed with the exclusion of one point regarding certain sales numbers, given the president's knowledge as a result of his role in the corporation. Nevertheless, the Court disagreed with the substantive point made in the affidavit, concluded that the relevant sales figures were less than 35%, and affirmed summary judgment on the Franchise Act claim. With respect to the award of interest on the account stated claim, the Court concluded that Timberland waived its objection. Even had it not waived its objection, the interest award was appropriate in that Timberland accepted the goods and was obligated to pay for them, with interest, pursuant to the parties’ prior relationship. Finally, the Court found no genuine issues of material fact with respect to Timberland’s tortious interference, Unfair Trade Practices Act, or unjust enrichment claims.

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

KAWASAKI HEAVY INDUSTRIES v. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS (October 21, 2011)

In 2006 and 2007, Kawasaki and Bombardier were embroiled in a patent dispute that led to several federal lawsuits. Kawasaki brought suit in Texas and Bombardier brought suits in both Florida and Texas. The parties reached a settlement in late 2007, pursuant to which they agreed to dismiss the lawsuits, agreed not to bring a future suit for patent infringement, and agreed to resolve any controversy arising out of the settlement through various alternative dispute mechanisms, including binding arbitration. The agreement also required Bombardier to cause its security agreements with its bank to be subordinated to the settlement agreement. Kawasaki executed the agreement in March of 2008, after receiving assurances from Bombardier that its bank had agreed to the subordination. In fact, Bombardier's bank refused to subordinate its security interests. Kawasaki returned to federal court in Texas and asked the court to vacate the earlier dismissal and require Bombardier to comply with the settlement agreement. The court refused. Kawasaki appealed but also engaged, with Bombardier, in court-ordered mediation. Kawasaki later dismissed the appeal and filed a new action in the Southern District of Illinois requesting specific performance of the settlement agreement's obligations. Kawasaki also brought claims against Bombardier's attorneys and its bank. Bombardier moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the claims pending arbitration. Chief Judge Herndon (S.D. Ill.) denied the motion. Bombardier appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Manion, and Sykes reversed as to the Bombardier claims and vacated as to the other claims. The Court noted that the arbitration agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute between the parties. The only reason to deny Bombardier's request to arbitrate, then, would be that it waived that right. The district court so concluded, citing Bombardier's participation in the Texas district court litigation, the appeal, and the court-ordered mediation. The Court recognized that a party can waive a contractual arbitration right, and that the waiver can be explicit or inferred. In order to infer such a waiver, however, a court must determine the party acted inconsistent with its right to arbitrate, given all the circumstances. Relevant considerations include a party's diligence, delay, participation in court proceedings, and prejudice. Although the Court conceded that Bombardier participated in the court proceedings and mediation, it concluded that its participation was not inconsistent with exercising its right to arbitrate. All of its actions were in response to Kawasaki's actions and it never agreed to allow the Texas court to resolve the dispute -- it never even addressed the merits. Had it not participated in the proceedings or mediation, it risked a default judgment. Likewise, although there has been some delay, the delay is not inconsistent with Bombardier's right to arbitrate. It has consistently asserted its right to arbitrate the dispute, and it is Kawasaki's dispute that is an issue. Bombardier was not required to take any affirmative steps. It is enough for it to continue to assert its willingness to arbitrate and forgo any participation in substantive litigation. The district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss or stay. With respect to the other parties, the Court vacated the district court's order. First, Bombardier has no standing to protect the rights of the other defendants. Second, the issue whether the arbitration clause applies to the non-signatories is not ripe for review. Kawasaki does not want to arbitrate those claims and the non-signatories have not indicated their desire, one way or the other.

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

 RODAS v. SEIDLIN (August 31, 2011)

The Crusaders Central Clinic Association is a federally funded community health center in Rockford, Illinois that serves an underserved population. Dr. William Baxter is one of the Clinic's physicians. The Clinic also contracted with the University of Illinois College of Medicine. For a fixed annual fee, the College provided backup services. When College physicians provided services, the Clinic was authorized to collect fees from its patients. One of Dr. Baxter's patients was Gloria Rodas. In the early morning of August 2, 2001, Rodas went into labor. Dr. Baxter met her at the hospital and assumed her care. The delivery turned problematic and Dr. Baxter sought the assistance of two College physicians. They eventually delivered the baby by Cesarean section, but she died within weeks. One of the College physicians prepared a bill for her services rendered and transmitted it to the Clinic -- the other physician did not. Rodas filed a medical malpractice suit in 2003. Because of the Clinic's federal funding, it and Dr. Baxter were considered to have federal status. Rodas’ suit was against the United States in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States removed and substituted itself as defendant. Since Rodas had not exhausted administrative remedies, she dismissed her claims against the United States The case was remanded to state court. Rodas exhausted her administrative remedies and then amended her state court complaint, adding the United States. The United States again removed. The two College physicians moved for summary judgment under the Illinois Good Samaritan Act. Under the Act, a physician who provides emergency care in good faith without a fee is not liable for malpractice. Judge Kapala (N.D. Ill.) agreed and granted summary judgment to the physicians. After that judgment was entered, the United States moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction. The district court denied that motion. Rodas appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Williams reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed the jurisdictional issue. Under the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction, a federal court lacks jurisdiction of a suit removed from state court if the state court had no jurisdiction. This is true even if the suit could have been brought originally in the federal court. The Court looked at the propriety of the removal itself. Under § 1442, the federal officer removal statute, a case "commenced" in state court against the United States may be removed. The United States (as amicus) argues that the case was not commenced against it since it was not an originally named defendant. The Court rejected that argument, relying on the plain language of the statute and congressional intent. Removal was proper if the United States was named in an amended pleading, which it was. Therefore, removal under § 1441 was proper and the derivative jurisdiction doctrine would seem to lead to the conclusion that jurisdiction does not exist. The Court looked to the Supreme Court decisions in Grubbs and Caterpillar, in which the Court distinguished between procedural defects and true jurisdictional defects. In those cases, improper removals were not discovered until after judgment was entered. In both cases, the Supreme Court concluded that jurisdiction was present in cases where procedural defects were corrected before judgment. The Court concluded that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine was not an essential ingredient of subject matter jurisdiction but was more akin to a procedural defect. That the state court lacked jurisdiction does not, therefore, defeat the federal court’s jurisdiction.
          The Court turned to the merits and the interpretation of the Illinois Good Samaritan Act. The Court first rejected the defendants' argument that, because they occupy salaried positions and received no compensation from Rodas, neither received a fee. Relying on the plain language of the statute and the dictionary, the Court concluded that services can be rendered for a fee even if the rendering physician receives no compensation directly from that fee. That concluded the matter with respect to the physician who actually submitted the paperwork to the Clinic for processing the fee. The other physician never submitted the paperwork. There was no fee at all. But the physician’s general practice was to complete the paperwork. In fact, he testified that he did not recall ever providing services without preparing the fee paperwork. The Court concluded that there was a genuine issue of fact regarding whether he acted in good faith.

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

PADULA v. LEIMBACH (August 29, 2011)

Jerome Clement experienced a hypoglycemic episode while driving to work one day. He turned into a parking lot and stopped near a truck scale. A 911 call triggered a police response. The responding officers were told to respond to an intoxicated man in a car. The officers tried to wake Clement. Clement did not comply with police orders, spoke in angry tones, and even swung at an officer. The officers physically removed him from the car and attempted to handcuff him. He continued to resist. The officers continued to use force, including hitting him with a baton, kneeling on his head, and spraying him with Mace. Eventually, a paramedic arrived and transported him to the hospital. He died two weeks later of unrelated causes. His estate brought suit under § 1983 for wrongful arrest and excessive force against the officers and for failure to train and supervise against the City of East Chicago, Indiana and its Police Department. Judge Van Bokkelen (N.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. The estate appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed the wrongful arrest charge and found ample evidence to support probable cause. Clement drove off the road, was slouched over in his car, was unkempt, and had bloodshot eyes. Furthermore, there was no indication, such as a necklace or bracelet, that he suffered from diabetes. Summary judgment on the unlawful arrest claim was appropriate. The Court turned to the excessive force claim and applied the objectively reasonable standard. Again, the Court found ample evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the officers responded reasonably. Clement refused to comply with police orders and resisted their attempts to handcuff him. The officers' response was commensurate with the situation. With respect to the inadequate training and supervision counts, the Court concluded that they were waived or, if not waived, they failed because the underlying arrest and excessive force counts failed.

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

PURCELL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (August 23, 2011)

In January of 2008, Christopher Purcell was serving as a hospital corpsmen in the United States Navy stationed at the Brunswick Naval Air Station. Purcell had experienced social and emotional problems since his enlistment a few years earlier. Base personnel received a notification on January 27 that he had a gun and was suicidal. Government law enforcement officers responded and arrived at his on-base residents. He was alive. Although the officers found a gun case and ammunition, they did not locate a weapon. They handcuff Purcell but removed the handcuffs to allow him to use the bathroom. While in the bathroom, Purcell shot and killed himself with a gun that he had hidden in his waistband. Michael Purcell, Christopher's father, brought a wrongful death action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Judge Lefkow (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint pursuant to Feres, which shields the government from FTCA liability when the injuries complained of "arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service." Purcell appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Evans (who, as a result of his death, did not participate in the decision) affirmed. The Court began by noting the controversy and dissension surrounding the Feres doctrine but also noting that a Supreme Court majority reaffirmed the doctrine the last time it addressed it. At that time, the Supreme Court identified three rationales for the doctrine: a) to need to protect the government-Armed Forces relationship, b) the availability of a statutory compensation scheme, and c) the need to avoid interference with internal military affairs. The fundamental question under Feres is whether the injury at issue "arose out of activity incident to military service." Applying that test, the Court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint. Citing the doctrine's "enormous breadth," the Court relied on the facts that: a) Purcell was on active duty, b) Purcell lived in on-base housing, c) Purcell was suffering from emotional problems that began after his enlistment, and d) Purcell was avoiding the military law enforcement personnel that were sent to assist him.

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

PAKOVICH v. VERIZON LTD PLAN (July 22, 2011)

Lisa Pakovich became disabled during her employment with Verizon. Verizon denied her request for long-term disability benefits under its ERISA plan. Although the district court affirmed the denial, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded to the plan administrator for a new determination. Pakovich heard nothing from the administrator for almost 5 months so she filed another suit. Shortly thereafter, the Plan agreed to pay all the benefits she requested and moved to dismiss her suit as moot. Judge Reagan (S.D. Ill.) denied the motion, entered judgment for Pakovich in the amount the Plan agreed to pay, but denied Pakovich's fee motion.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Evans, and Tinder vacated in part and affirmed in part. The Court first agreed with the Plan that Pakovich's case was moot. The Plan agreed to pay everything she asked for in her claim for benefits. Her fee request did not prevent her case from being moot. The Court next considered whether the district court even had jurisdiction of her fee claim. Relying on its FOIA jurisprudence, the Court concluded that a district court retains equitable jurisdiction to address a fee claim. Addressing the merits of the fee claim, the Court noted that a fee award under ERISA has two elements. First, the claimant must show "some degree of success on the merits." Second, the defendant's position must be not substantially justified. The Court ultimately determined that it did not need to decide either of those elements. Here, the district court denied her fee request because of inadequate documentation and support for either the hourly rate or the time spent. It was her burden to adequately support her request. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied fees.

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

SENNE v. VILLAGE OF PALATINE (July 11, 2011)

The Court granted a petition for rehearing en banc on September 13, 2011 and vacated the following opinion.

Jason Senne left his car parked overnight in Palatine, Illinois. Unfortunately, he was parked illegally. When he returned to his car, he found that it had been ticketed. The ticket itself included his name, his address, his date of birth, his sex, his height, and his weight. It had been placed on the car approximately five hours before he discovered it. The ticket itself could also be used as an envelope if the recipient decided to pay the fine by mail. Instead of paying the $20 fine, Senne filed a class action under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The Act prohibits the disclosure of personal information contained in a motor vehicle record. Judge Kennelly (N.D. Ill.) granted Palatine's motion to dismiss, concluding that the placement of the ticket on the windshield did not constitute a disclosure under the Act and that, even if it did, the disclosure was permissible under the Act. Senne appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Ripple (concurring in part and dissenting in part) affirmed. The Court first turned to the language of the statute to ascertain Congress's intent. The Act provides that a covered person "shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available" the personal information. The Court rejected the Village's strained definition of "disclose" to apply only to those situations in which information is actually shared with someone. Relying both on the standard dictionary definition of "disclose" and the rest of the statutory phrase ("or otherwise make available"), the Court concluded that the placement of a parking ticket on a car constitutes "disclosure." The Act, however, lists 14 permissible uses, one of which is that the information may be disclosed in connection with any court or agency proceeding, including the service of process. Placing a parking ticket on a car constitutes service of process. Palatine's conduct was therefore permissible. The Court specifically rejected Senne's argument that the permissible use exceptions included only disclosures that were necessary for the purpose of the exception. Finally, the Court rejected Senne's argument that including the personal information on a piece of paper that could be used as an envelope constituted a second violation. The disclosure is still in connection with the court proceeding so it was still a permissible use. Even if it was an impermissible use, it would be the ticket recipient, not the Village of Palatine, that would be liable.

Judge Ripple wrote separately. He concurred with the majority's treatment of "disclosure." In his view, however, Palatine violated the Act because it disclosed personal information that it did not need to disclose to accomplish the service of process. The exceptions must be interpreted in accordance with Congressional intent. Therefore, Judge Ripple believed that the Act must be read to limit the permissible uses to the disclosure of information that is reasonably necessary to effectuate the government's purpose. Here, none of the information Senne complains of was necessary to achieve Palatine's purpose -- to notify the owner of the car of a parking violation.

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

ALIOTO v. TOWN OF LISBON (July 7, 2011)

Two Lisbon, Wisconsin supervisors asked Sergeant Tom Alioto to investigate his boss, the police chief. Alioto did so and submitted a report, apparently implicating the chief in unlawful behavior. Lisbon suspended the chief and made Alioto the acting police chief. Shortly thereafter, under threat of litigation, the town reinstated the chief. Alioto claims that the chief got revenge by defaming him in the press, pursuing baseless criminal charges with the district attorney, and imposing unreasonable requirements when Alioto wanted to return to the department after a medical leave. Alioto brought suit against Lisbon and the chief under § 1983, alleging violations of his "constitutional rights." When the defendants challenged the allegations and moved for judgment on the pleadings, Alioto agreed to a briefing schedule. On the day the brief was due, however, Alioto did not respond to defendants' arguments. Instead, he moved to file an amended complaint. Judge Stadtmueller (E.D. Wis.) denied the motion for leave to amend and granted defendants' motion to dismiss. He concluded that Alioto waived any arguments on the merits by not respond to defendants’ motion and failed to show good cause for leave to amend. Alioto appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Rovner affirmed. The Court noted that Rule 15(a)(2) contains a fairly lenient standard for granting leave to file an amended complaint. But Rule 16 requires a court to set a scheduling order with a deadline for amended pleadings, which the court did in this case. The scheduling order set a November 2008 deadline for amended pleadings. Rule 16(b)(4) requires good cause to modify a scheduling order. Here, Alioto requested leave to file his amended complaint months after the deadline. The district court was correct in evaluating his request under the standards both of Rule 16 and Rule 15. The court did not abuse its discretion in finding an absence of good cause. The principle good cause factor is diligence. Here, not only did Alioto request leave several months after the deadline, he waited until the last day of the briefing schedule to even advise the court and the defendants of his request. With respect to the motion to dismiss, the Court also affirmed. Not only did Alioto not respond to any of defendants' arguments in the district court, he never really addressed the waiver argument on appeal.

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

ELLIS v. CCA OF TENNESSEE (June 9, 2011)

Harriett Ellis, Patricia Forrest, Shavon Jones, and Delores McNeil were all employed as nurses at the Marion County Jail II. They are all also African-American. CCA of Tennessee operates the jail pursuant to a contract with the Marion County Sheriff and employs its entire medical staff. Plaintiffs allege several instances of racial discrimination at the jail: a) a shift change directive that required nurses to rotate among shifts rather than work the same shift, as the plaintiff nurses had been doing, b) the health services administrator's possession of a management book excerpt that compared workplace problems to monkeys, c) a reference to monkeys over the intercom system, d) a coworker who wore clothing with a picture of the Confederate flag, and e) a doctor stating to one of the nurses that the first name of an inmate named Cole must be "black as." The plaintiffs all resigned in late 2006 or early 2007. They all claim they were constructively discharged because they complained about improper or unsafe work practices. They filed suit under Title VII and § 1981, alleging race discrimination and hostile work environment. They also alleged state law retaliatory discharge. Judge Barker (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. She also concluded that plaintiff Forrest's claims were precluded by res judicata. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Williams and District Judge Herndon affirmed. The Court first addressed the hostile work environment claim. Such a claim must show that the environment was both objectively and subjectively offensive. Here, although the Court assumed that the plaintiffs found the management book offensive, they concluded that no reasonable person would find it so. The monkey in the book is clearly a metaphor for management problems, not people. There is also not enough in the record regarding the monkey comments on the intercom to establish a hostile work environment. Although the court found the Confederate flag and the doctor’s statement offensive, the limited number of incidents does not support a hostile work environment claim. The Court turned to the race discrimination claim. A race discrimination claim requires a material, adverse employment action. The Court rejected each of plaintiffs' three suggestions: a) the shift-change policy does not qualify because it did not include any particular hardship, b) plaintiff Ellis' three-day suspension does not qualify because she was unable to show that CCA's explanation was pretext, and c) they cannot show a constructive discharge since it requires more than hostile work environment. The Court then addressed the Indiana statutory whistleblower claim. In order for an employee to get the protection of the statute, she must report a violation of federal or state law, an ordinance violation, or the misuse of public resources. The reports at issue primarily addressed CCA safety practices. Since the plaintiffs have not identified any violation or misuse, they cannot prevail under the statute. The Court did find the district court's ruling on res judicata erroneous. One of the plaintiffs made similar allegations in an earlier lawsuit. The district court concluded that she should have amended her complaint in that suit to include incidents between its filing and the summary judgment motion. The court was wrong. Res judicata does not bar a second lawsuit based on facts that arose after the first complaint was filed.

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

SILIVEN v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES (March 16, 2011)

Teresa and Mark Siliven’s two-year-old son had been in daycare with Ashley Woods for almost a year. When Teresa picked him up one day in January 2008, Woods told her that the boy had been acting up. Later that evening, Teresa noticed bruises on her son's arm. Mark said he knew nothing about them, so they filed a child-abuse report with the Richmond, Indiana Police Department. The report was forwarded to the Indiana Department of Child Services(DCS). DCS caseworker Amber Luedike investigated. She interviewed Mark and Teresa, as well as Woods. Luedike also asked the Siliven’s to take their son to the emergency room for an examination. Although the emergency room report reached no conclusion as to the cause of the bruises, another doctor to whom Luedike showed the bruises opined that they were consistent with an adult grabbing the boy's arm. Six days into her investigation, Luedike learned that the DCS had substantiated an incident of child abuse involving Mark and his 15-year-old stepdaughter five years earlier. Luedike met with her supervisor, a staff attorney, and a DCS director. She recommended that DCS remove the boy from his home. She based her recommendation on the likelihood that he had been injured by an adult, the fact that the parents had not been eliminated as the cause, and Mark’s earlier incident. The others agreed, and also agreed that they should remove him on an emergency basis because they would be unable to obtain a court order before the upcoming weekend. Luedike and several sheriff’s deputies went to the Siliven's home, intending to take the boy into protective custody. The DCS director eventually agreed, however, to allow Teresa to take the boy to his grandmother's home in Ohio. The following Monday, a judge concluded that probable cause to believe that the boy’s physical health was seriously endangered did not exist. DCS closed its investigation. The Silivens filed suit against Luedike and the DCS director, alleging federal Constitutional and state law violations. Judge Lawrence (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants based on qualified immunity. He did not address whether there was a constitutional violation but, under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, held that the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the conduct. The Silivens appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Evans affirmed. The Court’s two-part test is familiar: whether the complaint alleges a constitutional violation and whether the rights allegedly violated were clearly established at the time of the conduct. Unlike the district court, which ignored the first prong and found the second prong dispositive, the Court started with the first prong and found it dispositive. With respect to the Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim, the Court assumed without deciding that there was a seizure (remember that the boy never left his mother's side) but concluded that the defendants' acts were reasonable under an objective test. There was physical evidence of abuse, Mark had access to the boy, and the DCS had substantiated an earlier abuse claim against Mark. Those facts, particularly combined with the fact that the boy remained with his mother at all times, were enough for the Court to find reasonableness. With respect to the substantive due process claim, the Court noted that the constitutional right to familial integrity has to be balanced against the public interest in child safety. A caseworker need only have reasonable suspicion of past or threatened abuse to take a child into custody. Since that threshold is less demanding than the Fourth Amendment threshold the Court already discussed, the Court had no difficulty in concluding that there was no substantive due process violation. Finally, the Siliven's also alleged a procedural due process violation. Due process does require a pre-deprivation hearing before a child is removed from his home, unless there are exigent circumstances. This also requires an objective test, whether a reasonable caseworker would have believed the child was in immediate danger. Again, that test is less stringent than the Fourth Amendment test. The Court concluded that the defendants met the test.

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

REEVES v. DAVIS (March 14, 2011)

Linda Reeves hired Gerald Davis to help her with some home renovations. Although he represented himself to be licensed and insured, he was not. After she paid him almost $60,000, Davis left the job incomplete. A state court entered judgment in Reeves' favor, concluding that Davis violated the Indiana Home Improvements Contracts Act. The court specifically found that Davis committed a "deceptive act" under the statute. The court also made a factual finding that the contract covered the construction of a porch, although it did so by concluding that the contract lacked specificity and that any uncertainty should be resolved against Davis. Before Reeves collected any money, Davis petitioned for bankruptcy. Reeves filed an action asserting that the debt was non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), which does not discharge a debt that is obtained by "false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud." The bankruptcy court rejected her collateral estoppel argument, held its own trial, found that the contract may not have included a porch, concluded that Davis did not have the requisite § 523 fraudulent intent, and ruled the debt discharged. Judge Magnus-Stinson (S.D. Ind.) affirmed. Reeves appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Williams and District Judge Herndon affirmed. The Court stated that § 523 requires, among other things, a showing that Davis possessed an intent to deceive. Reeves argued that the state court's factual finding that the contract included the porch coupled with Davis' admission that he never intended to build one established that intent. The Court agreed with Reeves on the first point and concluded that the bankruptcy court should have deferred to the state court’s factual finding. But the state court did not make a finding regarding his intent. The Court noted that his own testimony that he never intended to build a porch must be taken in context with his testimony that he did not believe the contract called for one. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err when it concluded that Davis did not possess fraudulent intent.

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

DELAPAZ v. RICHARDSON (February 14, 2011)

Pablo Delapaz and Michael Sarkauskas are both employees of the City of Chicago's Department of Streets and Sanitation (DSS). They are also both supporters of the Hispanic Democratic Organization. In 2001 in 2002, DSS Commissioner Al Sánchez appointed both men to temporary acting foremen positions in the Department. Michael Picardi replaced Sanchez as Commissioner several years later. Delapaz and Sarkauskas still occupied their temporary positions. Shortly after Picardi became Commissioner, he ordered the elimination of all acting foreman positions and the return of those employees to their prior positions. When Deputy Commissioner Richardson advised Delapaz that he would have to return to his prior position, he also remarked: "Your guy is gone." Both Delapaz and Sarkauskas assumed their prior positions in the summer of 2005, as did all the other acting foremen. Later that year, the Richardson appointed another man as an acting Foreman for snow removal purposes. That man was a contributor and volunteer for Chicago Alderman Richard Mell. Delapaz and Sarkauskas filed suit against Deputy Commissioner Richardson under § 1983, alleging that he violated their First Amendment rights of free association by demoting them because of their HDO affiliation. Judge Marovich (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Richardson. Delapaz and Sarkauskas appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Evans and District Judge McCuskey affirmed. The Court agreed that a public employee’s firing or demotion because of his or her political affiliation is a First Amendment violation. But to state a claim against a particular defendant, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant participated or caused the deprivation. In their summary judgment response pursuant to local rule, plaintiffs admitted that Picardi ordered the demotions, not Richardson. Courts are entitled to rely on these admissions. In light of the admission, the plaintiffs cannot establish Richardson's liability. The Court did cite another reason why they could not prevail: they waived the Richardson liability argument by not addressing it in their response brief in the district court. And the Court cited yet a third reason why they could not prevail: the merits. The only evidence the plaintiffs presented that Richardson even knew of their HDO affiliation is the "your guy" remark he made to Delapaz, an apparent reference to Sanchez. But they presented no evidence that Sanchez was even affiliated with HDO or, if he was, that Richardson knew about it. And they presented no evidence at all that Richardson knew of Sarkauskas’ HDO affiliation -- only that the timing of his demotion (two weeks after Delapaz) was suspicious. Without a triable issue of fact on whether he knew of their party affiliation, Richardson is entitled to summary judgment.

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

PIRELLI ARMSTRONG TIRE CORPORATION RETIREE MEDICAL BENEFITS TRUST v. WALGREEN COMPANY (January 21, 2011)

Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits Trust uses a Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) to administer its relationships with pharmacies that the Trust's members use to fill prescriptions and that the Trust then reimburses for amounts in excess of the members’ co-pays. The PBM sets the maximum reimbursable price for the most frequently used prescriptions. Reimbursement for less popular medications is the average wholesale price, set by the manufacturers. The average wholesale price is almost always more than if the price had been set by a PBM. In the case of two particular drugs, Ranitidine and Fluoxetine, one form of the drug (i.e., capsule versus tablet) was on the controlled price list and the other was governed by the average wholesale price. It is illegal in Illinois for a pharmacy to dispense a drug in a form other than that which was prescribed. The Trust brought suit against Walgreens, alleging that the pharmacy filled members' prescriptions for those two drugs in the form that provided them the greatest reimbursement, regardless of which form was prescribed. The complaint cited several grounds for the Trust's belief that Walgreens committed this fraud: a) a preliminary review of its own reimbursement data that showed 12 members had prescriptions filled at Walgreens with the more expensive form of one of the drugs, and that three of those 12 members had apparently the same prescriptions filled at other pharmacies with the less expensive form of the drug, b) the allegations of a 2003 whistleblower suit that alleged that Walgreens filled prescriptions for the drugs with the more expensive form, and c) the data collected by a different PBM that compared Walgreens’ choice of drug form with other pharmacies and concluded that Walgreens’ rate of filling prescriptions with the higher priced drugs was overwhelmingly greater. The suit was originally brought as a class action and encompassed prescriptions in 35 states. It scope was narrowed, however to Illinois only and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Trust also included an unjust enrichment claim under Illinois law. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) granted Walgreens' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Trust failed to adequately plead fraud and that it failed to allege that it had been injured. The Trust appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Tinder affirmed. The Illinois Act does make it unlawful to use fraud in trade or commerce. But it also is governed by the heightened fraud pleading requirements of the federal rules. The general rule is that a plaintiff cannot satisfy that heightened standard with allegations "on information and belief." Although the plaintiff does not use those words, the allegations fit the concept. There is an exception to that general rule where the plaintiff has no access to the facts constituting the fraud and where he adequately provides the grounds for his suspicions. The Court considered the support cited in the complaint in that light. First, it gave little weight to the allegations of the whistleblower suit. Allegations in other lawsuits are typically given little weight, particularly here, when those allegations themselves, for the most part, are made on information and belief. Second, the Court afforded little weight to the data set collected by the other PBM. Although that data does support a belief that a third party payor was injured, it does little to support the Trust, particularly since it is based on a different set of reimbursement data. The Trust had available its own reimbursement data. Third, the Court turned to that reimbursement data and found it wanting as well. There is not much data to begin with and the Court wondered why the Trust's pre-filing inquiry could not have resulted in a more robust data set. The suspicious examples themselves were few. In a universe of thousands of members and thousands of pharmacies nationwide, 12 erroneous prescriptions is not evidence of fraud. The Trust simply did not provide enough data and context to meet the heightened standard. Although the Trust may be correct that the small subset of members who had their prescriptions filled differently at Walgreens and other pharmacies is "suspiciously consistent" with fraud, it is not enough to satisfy the fraud pleading requirement. The district court was correct in dismissing the statutory count. Finally, the Court concluded that the district court was correct in dismissing the unjust enrichment claim. In Illinois, an unjust enrichment claim is not a separate cause of action but an equitable remedy. The Trust pleads its unjust enrichment claim on the same facts as it pleads its statutory claim. Those allegations of fraud are governed by the same pleading standard and must be dismissed for the same reason.

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

ARLIN-GOLF v. VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS (January 21, 2011)

Ronald Popp and Victor Valenti purchased the Arlin-Golf Shopping Center in the Village of Arlington Heights, Illinois in 2001. Within a year, the Village implemented a Tax Increment Financing District and announced that the Center would be demolished and the property redeveloped within months. The Village never followed through with its plan, however. The owners claim that they did encourage Center tenants to leave, discouraged prospective tenants from renting, and generally continued to announce falsely that the property would be condemned and redeveloped. The owners sued the Village in state court challenging the ordinance itself and alleging that the Village's actions constituted a taking under Illinois' Constitution. In 2008, the owners and the Village settled their lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, the owners dismissed the suit with prejudice and the Village purchased the property for $1.6 million. A few weeks after the sale closed, the owners brought suit in federal court against the Village, several Village officials, a brokerage firm that had assisted the owners in trying to sell the property before the settlement, a local bank, and the bank's chairman. Their complaint included allegations of violations of the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses, among others. Essentially, their claim was that the defendants' actions resulted in significant financial losses in connection with their ownership of the Center. Judge Coar (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint on res judicata grounds. The owners appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum, and Kanne affirmed. The Court noted the three res judicata requirements: a) a final judgment, b) identity of cause of action, and c) the identity of the parties. Under Illinois law, identity of cause of action exists if the claims arise from the same operative facts, even if they assert totally different theories of relief. The Court found that test met here. Both suits arise from the Village's implementation of its ordinance and the conduct of the defendants that allegedly led to the owners’ financial losses. The federal suit does not allege any material facts that occurred after the state court settlement. The Court also found no error in the district court's refusal to allow the owners to amend their pleadings, noting that the owners did not submit a proposed amended complaint to the district court in order to show that an amendment would not be futile.

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

THOMAS v. H&R BLOCK EASTERN ENTERPRISES (January 12, 2011)

Amorita Thomas worked as a seasonal tax preparer for H&R Block for the 2005-06 and the 2006-07 tax seasons. Her employment agreement provided for two different types of compensation. First, she was paid hourly. Second, she was eligible for compensation at the end of the tax season to the degree that the sum of several identified amounts exceeded her total hourly income for that season. Those other amounts included incentives for products sold, return clients, and number of returns prepared. The returns prepared number was based on fees collected. Thomas received her hourly wages on a biweekly basis but did not receive her seasonal compensation until sometime in May of each year, even though she stopped working several weeks earlier. Thomas brought suit against H&R Block pursuant to Indiana's Wage Payment Statute, which requires "wages" to be paid within 10 days after they are earned. Then-Judge Hamilton (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendant. Thomas appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Ripple, and Evans affirmed. The Court noted that it was its obligation to apply the law of Indiana, as the Indiana Supreme Court has or would determine. The only issue on appeal was whether Thomas’ seasonal compensation amounted to “wages" in the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. Although the term is not defined in that particular statute, Indiana courts have looked at the definition in the Wage Claims Statute and the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Highhouse. Considering that, the Court found the answer dependent on several factors. Compensation is less likely to be considered "wages" if: a) it is linked to a contingency, b) it would be hard to calculate and pay it within the statutory period, c) is not directly related to hours worked, and d) is paid in addition to other compensation. In this case, the Court found that each of those factors weighed against Thomas: a) the amount of the compensation for returns prepared is contingent on collections, b) evidence in the record indicates it would be almost impossible to calculate and pay the compensation within 10 days, c) the compensation was not directly related to hours worked, and d) the compensation was paid in addition to her hourly wages. Thus, the compensation is not "wages" under Indiana law. The Court rejected Thomas' request to certify the question to the Indiana Supreme Court in light of Highhouse and the fact that any decision of the state court would have limited application, given the unique compensation scheme.

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

OPP v. STATES ATTORNEY OF COOK COUNTY (December 29, 2010)

Christine Opp, Edward Barrett, and Leonard Cahnmann were each employed as Cook County Assistant State's Attorneys as of the end of 2006. Each of them was dismissed in the first three months of 2007, ostensibly for budgetary reasons. Each of the three filed suit claiming that his or her dismissal was a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Judges Bucklo, Leinenweber, and Castillo (N.D. Ill.) each granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs were excluded from ADEA coverage because they held policymaking positions. The plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Sykes, and Hamilton affirmed. ADEA excludes from the definition of "employee" elected officials, anyone on an elected official's staff, or an appointee of an elected official "on the policymaking level." The Court noted that, unlike the Second Circuit, it applies the same test in an ADEA case that it applies in a First Amendment political affiliation case. That test is whether the position authorizes "meaningful input into governmental decision-making." In applying the test, a court should look at the powers inherent in the job rather than any one person’s actual duties. The powers inherent in the position of Assistant State's Attorney are set by state law and have been described in prior decisions of the Court. In fact, an Assistant State's Attorney is a surrogate for the State's Attorney and does have the power to create policy. The plaintiffs therefore hold policymaking positions and are not covered by ADEA.

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

LABELLA WINNETKA, INC. v. THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA (December 29, 2010)

LaBella Winnetka operated as a restaurant in Winnetka, Illinois since 1993. It occupies a leased space and renews the lease from time to time. It also has a liquor license. Each year, Winnetka sends it a renewal form. Each year LaBella completes the form and Winnetka renews the license. A fire at the building in early 2007 damaged the roof over the LaBella dining room and forced its closure. The Village refused to allow repairs to the restaurant’s interior until the roof was fixed. It also refused to allow LaBella to reopen the undamaged portion of its leased premises. At the same time, other restaurants, even one operating out of the same building, were allowed to reopen in allegedly similar circumstances. LaBella's most recent liquor license was due to expire in March of 2008. Winnetka never sent a renewal form and terminated the license went LaBella did not file for renewal. LaBella brought suit against the Village and the Village Manager, alleging a violation of its equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process rights. The complaint alleged that the benefits bestowed on the other restaurants came about because of their friendships with the Village Manager. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) granted defendants' motion to dismiss. LaBella appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Flaum, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first considered the "class of one" equal protection claim. In order to state such a claim, one must allege treatment different from others "similarly situated." LaBella concedes that the restaurants that were allowed to reopen did not incur the same major fire damage as the LaBella roof. They are therefore not "similarly situated" and the equal protection claim fails. The Court next considered and rejected LaBella's substantive due process claim relating to its property interest in its lease and business. In order to prevail on that claim, LaBella had to show an independent constitutional violation or the inadequacy of state law remedies. It did neither. Finally, the Court rejected LaBella's procedural due process claims related to the liquor license non-renewal. First, to the extent the claim is based on the Village's simple failure to send a renewal form, there was no constitutional deprivation. Second, to the extent the claim is that the Village revoked the license without notice or hearing, the allegations of the complaint fall far short of even the notice pleading requirements of the federal rules. Finally, the claim fails because LaBella does not even allege that it took advantage of post-deprivation remedies or that they were inadequate.

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

BLOCKOWICZ v. WILLIAMS (December 27, 2010)

David, Mary, and Lisa Blockowicz filed a lawsuit against Joseph Williams and Michelle Ramey. They alleged that the defendants defamed them by posting untruthful statements on several websites. The defendants never responded to the lawsuit. The court entered a default judgment and issued an injunction requiring the defendants to remove the defamatory statements. When the defendants made no attempt to comply with the injunction, the Blockowiczs contacted the operators of each of the websites at issue and asked each to remove the offending statements. Each website complied with the request -- except www.ripoffreport.com ("ROR"). ROR is a website whose purpose is to host comments about bad business practices. Posters must first enter into a contract with the site operator. Among other things, posters agree not to post defamatory remarks, agree to indemnify the operator, and agree that the operator will not remove material even at their request. The Blockowiczs sought to enforce their injunction directly against ROR under Rule 65 as a third party with actual notice who was "in active concert or participation" with a bound party. Chief Judge Holderman (N.D. Ill) denied the request. The Blockowiczs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Cudahy, Flaum, and Wood affirmed. The Court first rejected ROR's personal jurisdiction defense. Although it mentioned it in a footnote in its initial response below, ROR waived the defense when it participated in the briefing and oral argument in the district court. On the merits, the Court noted that Rule 65(d)(2) binds not only the parties but other persons with actual notice who are in "active concert or participation" with the parties. Here, ROR conceded that it had actual notice -- the only issue was its "concert or participation." The Court rejected the Blockowiczs’ bases for that requirement: a) the contract between ROR and the defendants was entered into before the alleged wrongdoing and cannot be the basis for "active concert," and b) ROR’s mere inactivity of not removing the postings cannot be the basis for "active concert." Finally, the Court stated that the Blockowiczs’ argument that the district court should have invoked its inherent authority was waived since it was not raised below. Even if not waived, however, the Court noted that it would have been an inappropriate remedy. The only appropriate avenue for relief is a contempt charge against the original defendants.

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

SELLERS v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. (December 3, 2010)

On September 15, 2005, Time Warner Cable employee Anthony Sellers suffered a torn tendon in his knee while at work. His surgeon, Dr. Schultz, repaired the tear and inserted a metal wire in the knee to facilitate Sellers' recovery. The wire was originally scheduled to be removed after several months. Dr. Schultz decided to leave it in, however, because Sellers was experiencing no pain. He eventually removed the wire on November 16, 2006, after Sellers complained of swelling and x-rays showed that the wire had broken into three pieces. Tragically, Sellers died nine days later from acute pulmonary embolism. Anthony's widow Audrey Sellers made a benefits claim under Sellers' accidental death and dismemberment policy, a part of Time Warner's employee welfare benefit plan. The plan provided for accidental death benefits if an "injury" results in death within a year of the "accident." Zurich American Insurance Company, which issued the policy, denied benefits. Its position was that the death occurred more than one year after the accident. It rejected Sellers' position that the wire breakage was an "injury." Sellers brought suit under ERISA. The district court remanded for more expansive findings and rationale on whether the wire breakage was an injury. Zurich again denied the claim. Its rationale was that an accident is an "unexpected event" and that, as evidenced by the Schultz's notes, the wire breakage was expected. On the renewal of the cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Adelman (E.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to Zurich. Sellers appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Manion, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first noted that it was applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, because Time Warner's benefit plan gives Zurich discretion to construe policy terms and Zurich based its decision on a construction of the plan's terms. On the merits, the Court found Zurich's construction of the plan arbitrary and capricious because it applied its definition of accident through the eyes of a doctor instead of a person of average intelligence and experience. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed the denial of benefits based upon its decision in Senkier. In that case, the court held that a death that is the result of complications of a standard medical treatment is the result of the underlying cause for the treatment. Here, the wire breakage was not an accident because it was an expected risk of the original surgery. Thus, the accident is the original tear and Sellers' death did not occur within a year.

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

RAIN v. ROLLS-ROYCE CORP. (November 18, 2010)

Among many other things, Rolls-Royce manufactures helicopter engines. A network of authorized repair and overhaul facilities supports that product line. Paramount International, owned by David Rain, competes with Rolls-Royce in the business of selling helicopter engine parts to those facilities. In 2006, Paramount and Rolls-Royce agreed to a non-disparagement clause as part of a lawsuit settlement. It simply stated: "None of the Parties will disparage the other." Rain brought suit in 2007, alleging a breach of the non-disparagement clause. He alleged two independent breaches: a) Rolls-Royce filed a RICO claim against a third party in which it alleged that Paramount and Rain were co-conspirators, and b) Rolls-Royce personnel asked him to leave a customer appreciation event held for its authorized network members, even though he was a guest of one of those members. Judge Lawrence (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to Rolls-Royce, concluding that an Indiana absolute litigation privilege immunized it on the first claim and that the company's conduct with respect to the second claim did not amount to disparagement. Rain and Paramount appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court first addressed the claims relating to the RICO allegations. Indiana does have an absolute litigation privilege and construes it liberally. It protects all "relevant" statements in the proceedings. Here, the Court concluded that the statements were relevant, given the pleading requirements for a RICO claim. Indiana courts, however, have only applied the privilege in tort liability, not contract liability, cases. With no Indiana authority, the Court looked elsewhere and adopted the rule applied in several other jurisdictions -- that the privilege does apply to contract claims, at least where its use is consistent with the purpose of the privilege. Here, the application of the privilege is consistent with the fair administration of justice and open expression by participants in a judicial proceeding. The Court further concluded that certification of the question was not warranted and affirmed the district court's application of the privilege. With respect to the claim based upon the company's conduct at the customer reception, the Court agreed that an Indiana court would look to a common dictionary definition of disparage -- that is, to dishonor, to unjustly discredit, to detract from one's reputation. The tougher question was whether the term referred to one's commercial reputation only or, as plaintiffs argued, to one's personal reputation. Relying on decisions from other jurisdictions, the Restatement, and the circumstances in which the clause appeared (the settlement of a commercial dispute), the Court concluded that the term should be applied to one's commercial reputation only. Since there was no evidence that Paramount or Rain suffered an injury in that sense, the Court affirmed.

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

MCALLISTER v. PRICE (August 12, 2010)

Frank McAllister, who suffers from diabetes, was driving his car alone early one afternoon when he suddenly went into a severe hypoglycemic state. McAllister's car struck two other vehicles before coming to rest. Although McAllister was not injured, witnesses described him as staring into space and convulsing. Burns Harbor police officer Jerry Price responded. The dispatch advised Price that the accident may have been caused by an intoxicated driver. Price confronted McAllister. When McAllister failed to follow his instructions or respond to his questions, Price removed him from his car with force. According to a witness, Price threw him to the ground, put his full weight on his back, and handcuffed him. Eventually, and only after the suggestion of a bystander, Price checked McAllister for medical alert identification. He discovered a diabetes alert necklace on McAllister and released him. McAllister suffered from a broken hip and a bruised lung. He brought a § 1983 complaint against Price. Judge Van Bokkelen (N.D. Ind.) denied Price's request for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, concluding that there were genuine issues of material fact. Price brought an interlocutory appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Tinder affirmed. A qualified immunity defense requires that a court answer two questions: whether there is a constitutional deprivation and whether the constitutional right was "clearly established" at the time. The Court first addressed the deprivation -- whether Price used excessive force. Three factors mattered: the degree of severity of any offense, whether the victim was a safety threat, and whether the victim was a flight risk. Before addressing the merits of the excessive force claim, the Court resolved two evidentiary issues. First, it concluded that the district court did not err in allowing evidence of McAllister's hip injury, even though there was no conclusive medical testimony that Price's actions caused the injury. Some causal evidence is all that is required for the jury to consider the evidence. Second, the Court concluded that the district court did not err in considering McAllister's diabetic condition. Although a police officer is not required to accommodate unknown conditions, here McAllister was obviously suffering from something and Price was trained in recognizing diabetes, trained in recognizing intoxication, and trained to look for medical alert identifications. On the merits of the constitutional deprivation question, the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the amount of force used was excessive. On the second question, the Court concluded that the case law in effect at the time of the incident was sufficient to "clearly establish" McAllister's rights to be free from the excessive force as alleged.

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

WALKER v. MONSANTO COMPANY PENSION PLAN (July 30, 2010)

Prior to 1997, Monsanto's employees had a variety of the retirement plan benefits. All employees had an age-65 benefit, but some employees had a discounted early retirement option while others had a subsidized early retirement option. Monsanto standardized and restructured its retirement plan in 1997 from a traditional plan into a cash balance plan. It created two accounts for each employee -- one that reflected benefits already earned at the time of the restructuring (the Prior Plan Account or PPA) and one to reflect newly earned benefits. The opening PPA balance was arrived at by converting the prior plan annuity amount to a lump sum equivalent and then discounting the amount by 8.5% per year for each year under 55 the employee was at the time of restructuring. Once the PPA was created, its balance increased through pay credits (4% per year law while employed) and interest credits (8.5% per year until age 55). It granted to all employees the subsidized early retirement option that only some of them had previously had. For the first time, it also gave employees an opportunity to receive retirement benefits before the age of 55. A number of Monsanto employees filed lawsuits, which were then consolidated. The employees allege that the restructured plan violates ERISA's prohibition on reducing an employee’s benefit accrual when the employee reaches a certain age. Judge Gilbert (S.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Evans affirmed. The plaintiffs claim that the 8.5% interest credit is a "benefit accrual" under ERISA and that termination of that benefit once an employee reaches the age of 55 violates the statute. The Court noted that ERISA prohibits a plan from reducing "an employee’s rate of benefit accrual" but does not define "benefit accrual." Benefit accrual depends, in part, on the type of plan at issue. Many cash balance plans operate like defined contribution plans. In those situations, the court must look to the annual additions to the employee’s hypothetical account. The Monsanto plan, however, operates like a defined benefit plan. Here, the court should look instead to the total accrued benefit at retirement. The Court looked at the total benefit at retirement under various scenarios and concluded that the Monsanto interest credits do not increase the employee’s total benefits. They are therefore not "benefit accruals" under ERISA and their termination at age 55 does not violate ERISA.

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

PARISH v. CITY OF ELKHART (July 30, 2010)

A jury found Christopher Parish guilty of the 1996 shooting of Michael Kershner in his Elkhart, Indiana home. Evidence uncovered during his post-conviction proceedings supported a different conclusion: that Kershner was shot in a drug deal and was not even in his home at the time, and that local police threatened witnesses and otherwise fabricated evidence in an effort to falsely convict Parish of the crime. Parish's conviction was vacated in 2006 by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The state then dropped all charges. Parish brought suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging the denial of a fair trial. He also brought state claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Judge Lozano (N.D. Ind.) dismissed all but the § 1983 fair trial claim on statute of limitations grounds. The court granted Parish's request for a Rule 54(b) certification. Parish appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Williams affirmed in part and reversed in part. Parish conceded, at oral argument, the propriety of the dismissal with respect to the claims for false arrest and false imprisonment. Thus, the only issue on appeal is the dismissal of the IIED claim. The parties agreed that the statute of limitations for the claim is two years from the date it accrued. The Court discussed four cases in its analysis of when an Indiana IIED claim accrues. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner could not bring a § 1983 suit for damages until his conviction was overturned. A judgment would have implied the invalidity of his conviction – the claim was therefore an improper collateral attack on the conviction. An Indiana appellate court followed Heck in Scruggs, when it dismissed false imprisonment claims. The Scruggs plaintiffs, still imprisoned, were also attacking the validity of their convictions. Next, in Wallace, the Supreme Court held that a claim for false arrest or false imprisonment requires a detention without legal process and therefore ends when legal process (e.g., appearance before a magistrate) is granted. The cause of action accrues at the same time -- when the false imprisonment ends. The Court distinguished Heck. Unlike in Heck, the Wallace claim for false imprisonment did not challenge the validity of a conviction. In fact, it did not even require a conviction. Finally, in Johnson, another Indiana appellate court concluded that a false arrest claim accrued at the time of arraignment (when process was granted) but that other claims of emotional discretion and invasion of privacy based on an unreasonable search accrued at the time of the search. Thus, the general rule requires an examination of whether the tort was complete before conviction (e.g., an IIED claim tied to an unreasonable search) or not (e.g. an IIED claim tied to a false conviction). If the former, the claim accrues upon completion of the tort. If the latter, the claim accrues upon completion of the tort unless it directly implicates the validity of the conviction. If it does, the claim does not accrue until the conviction has been lifted. Applying these principles to Parish's claim, the Court concluded that the IIED claims were not complete prior to conviction. In fact, the conviction was an integral part of Parish’s IIED allegations. The Court then concluded that the claim also attacks the validity of Parish's conviction and could not have been brought while the conviction was still outstanding. Parish brought the claim within two years of his exoneration – it is timely.

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

MOSLEY v. CITY OF CHICAGO (July 29, 2010)

It was mid-summer 1999 when Jovan Mosley and three other individuals were standing near the porch of a friend when Howard Thomas walked by. The four of them ran at Thomas. Thomas was beaten to death and the four of them left the area together. All four were arrested and charged with murder. The police took statements from them as well as several eyewitnesses. One eyewitness, Anton Williams, viewed Mosley in a lineup and identified him as a person who was on the scene. The lineup was not documented until 15 months later and the report does not what Williams said about Mosley's particular role in the murder. Another eyewitness, Gregory Reed, implicated all four of the defendants in the beating and specifically identified Mosley as having participated. Reed never testified at trial because he admitted to the prosecutor just before trial that he was quite drunk the night of the incident and had no independent recollection. Mosley remained in jail for over five years until he was tried and acquitted by a jury (see this for commentary on that delay). He brought a § 1983 action against the City of Chicago and several individual police officers who were involved in the investigation. He alleged a due process denial for the withholding of exculpatory evidence, malicious prosecution, and civil conspiracy. Judge Coar (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Mosley appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Wood affirmed. The Court first addressed the main issue, the failure to produce exculpatory evidence under Brady. The claim has two parts: a) that the prosecutors did not inform Mosley that Williams told the police at the lineup that Mosley did not participate in the beating, and b) that the prosecutors did not tell Mosley that Reed admitted to being drunk on the night of the incident. The Court noted the "logical tension" in a Brady claim when the case results in an acquittal. The normal test for a Brady claim is that the non-disclosed evidence could put the case in a different light and undermine confidence in the verdict. That test makes no sense when the verdict is an acquittal. In fact, the Court noted that several circuits have concluded that a Brady claim cannot exist after an acquittal. The Court has reserved answering that question in the past and did so again. In Bielanski, the Court concluded that the elements of a post-acquittal Brady claim, if one even exists, are a) the withholding of material and favorable evidence, and b) that would have changed the prosecutor’s decision to try the case. Since Mosley cannot meet either element, his Brady claim fails. With respect to the lineup, the Court concluded that there was literally no evidence in the record that Williams told police that Mosley did not participate in the crime. Other than a one-word answer to a leading question on cross-examination, his testimony was inconsistent with that conclusion. In addition, even if it was said, the prosecutors approach would not have changed. It did not have to prove that Mosley actually participated to prevail on the accountability theory it was pursuing. With respect to Reed being drunk, the prosecutor had no obligation to disclose the statement since Reed never testified at trial. The Court next addressed the state malicious prosecution claim, one of the elements of which is the lack of probable cause. The Court had no difficulty in concluding that the district court's finding that probable cause existed was correct. Finally, with respect to the civil conspiracy claim, the Court pointed out that Mosley offered no evidence of the common scheme element of the conspiracy claim. At the summary judgment stage, Mosley cannot rest on the allegations of his complaint but must come forward with evidence.

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

MEDMARK CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. v. AVENT AMERICA (July 15, 2010)

Avent America manufactures a number of products for children and babies. Several class actions have been filed against Avent alleging a) that certain Avent products contain Bisphenol-A (“BPA”), b) that Avent was aware of research indicating that BPA was harmful, c) that Avent claimed their products were safer than its competitors', and d) that plaintiffs suffered economic damages because they stopped using the products once they learned of the risk of harm. The complaints contained no allegations of actual bodily injury to the plaintiffs. In fact, Avent moved to dismiss the complaints because they lacked sufficient allegation of injury. The court did dismiss all but the unjust enrichment counts for any plaintiff who either used or disposed of the product before learning of the BPA -- concluding that those plaintiffs were unaffected by the alleged concealment. Meanwhile, Avent tendered the cases to a number of insurance carriers who had provided general commercial liability insurance over the relevant years. The language in each of the policies was substantially the same and provided coverage for damages "because of bodily injury." The carriers denied coverage and suit was filed. Judge Leinenweber (N.D. Ill) held for the carriers because of the absence of any allegation of bodily injury in the underlying complaint. Avent appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court began with the familiar Illinois standard for a duty to defend -- the duty to defend arises if the complaint’s allegations are even potentially within the scope of coverage. The Court considered and rejected the carriers' argument that Avent was judicially estopped from arguing that the underlying complaint alleged bodily injury when it argued in its motion to dismiss that the complaint did not allege bodily injury. Cautioning that a court must be careful in applying judicial estoppel in duty to defend cases, the Court found that Avent's argument was not in direct tension with its prior position. On the merits, the Court agreed with the carriers. The theory of relief stated in the complaints was for economic harm -- had the plaintiffs known of the risk of harm of BPA, they would not have purchased the product. There is a total absence of any claim of bodily injury, direct or indirect. The "because of" language in the policies may broaden the umbrella of coverage over a simple "bodily injury" policy, but the damages in such a case must be related somehow to bodily injury. Here, they are not. The Court recognized that the complaints could be amended in the future to include allegations of bodily injury. The Court noted that the carriers admitted during oral argument that they would have to reassess their coverage positions in such a case.

• 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

PICKETT v. SHERIDAN HEALTH CARE CENTER (June 25, 2010)

Danielle Pickett was employed as a housekeeper at the Sheridan Health Care Center in Zion, Illinois. In 2005 and 2006, she was the victim of several incidences of inappropriate remarks and touching by nursing home residents. Although the Center responded to her complaints, the promised response never quite succeeded. In a June 2006 meeting with several Center staff members, the Center agreed to reassign Pickett from cleaning residents' rooms, although, according to Pickett, the Center's VP of Operations suggested that Pickett invited the inappropriate conduct. The next morning, Pickett had a very emotional conversation with the Center's Administrator. According to Pickett, the Administrator said some things that indicated that her job may be in jeopardy. The meeting ended with Pickett still upset and in tears. Instead of resuming her assigned tasks, she left the Center. She called the Administrator the next day to ask if she still was employed. He consulted with the VP of Operations and advised Pickett that she no longer had a job. Beginning about a month later, after Picket filed an EEOC claim, the Center offered on several occasions to reinstate Pickett. She refused several such offers but eventually returned to the Center in January of 2007. She brought suit against the Center for sexual harassment and for retaliatory firing under Title VII. Judge Pallmeyer (N.D. Ill) granted summary judgment to the Center on the harassment claim. The retaliation claim went to trial. The jury found for Pickett and awarded $15,000 in compensatory and $50,000 in punitive damages. The court awarded back pay and injunctive relief. The Center appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Kanne, and Evans affirmed. The Court first rejected the Center's argument that Pickett could not prevail on the retaliation claim because she could not prevail on the harassment claim. In order to prevail on retaliation, a plaintiff need only show statutorily protected conduct, adverse action, and a causal link. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence of each of those elements in the record -- the jury was entitled to find in Pickett's favor. Each of the Center's other arguments was also rejected: a) counsel’s "send some message" language in closing argument was not improper, b) the compensatory damage award was not excessive and did not require corroborating evidence from a third party, and c) the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the punitive award to stand in light of the evidence that supported a conclusion that the Center knew it might be retaliating when it terminated Pickett's employment.

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

ANDERSON v. BAYER CORP. (June 22, 2010)

Bayer Corporation manufactured a prescription medication called Trasylol. A lawyer in St. Clair County, Illinois brought suit against Bayer alleging personal injury resulting from the use of the medication. The action was brought in five separate complaints with 171 plaintiffs spread among the complaints. All but one (the one apparently a mistake) of the virtually identical complaints named fewer than 100 plaintiffs. Bayer removed, citing the "mass action" removal mechanism of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Judge Murphy (S.D. Ill) remanded the four complaints that had fewer than 100 plaintiffs. Bayer petitioned to appeal under CAFA.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Evans denied the petition. CAFA's "mass action" provision allows a defendant to remove an action if it has 100 or more plaintiffs and otherwise meets CAFA’s removal requirements. The provision specifically excludes an action in which claims are consolidated upon the request of a defendant. The Court found this plain language of the statute dispositive of Bayer's request. Apparently, Congress anticipated this very situation and decided to allow plaintiffs to proceed in state court by limiting each complaint to fewer than 100 plaintiffs. Although the Court concluded that CAFA removal was not available, it did note that the claims could be removable in the future if, for example, the claims were consolidated for trial. The Court declined to consider Bayer's alternative argument that diversity jurisdiction existed under a fraudulent misjoinder theory. The exception to the general rule prohibiting review of a remand order that allowed the Court's review of the "mass action" argument applies only to the remand of class actions. Since these cases are not class actions under CAFA, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's decision regarding fraudulent joinder.

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

ALVAREZ v. CITY OF CHICAGO (May 21, 2010)

A group of Chicago Fire Department paramedics brought a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards (FLSA) against the City of Chicago. The complaint alleged that this City violated the FLSA by not properly calculating overtime payments. The plaintiffs identified ten different ways the City allegedly miscalculated overtime pay, not all of which applied to each paramedic's situation. Over three hundred paramedics eventually opted into the collective action. When several were dismissed for failure to opt in in time, they filed their own individual suit with the same allegations. The two cases were consolidated. Judge Hibbler (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the City as against all plaintiffs. He concluded that the fact that each plaintiff would use a different combination of the various alleged miscalculations prevented them from being similarly situated. He also directed the plaintiffs to arbitrate their complaints, even though he recognized that arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement was not mandatory. The plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum, and Evans reversed and remanded. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows employees to bring complaints as collective actions, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Although a district court is given substantial discretion to manage collective actions, the Court concluded that the district court had misinterpreted a prior case. In Jonites, the Court had found a collective action inappropriate in a situation requiring significant individual fact-finding. Here, although different plaintiffs would be affected by different sub claims, very little individual fact-finding will be required. In addition, the Court concluded that the district court erred in comparing the efficiency of the collective action to arbitration. If the plaintiffs are willing to proceed individually, the proper comparison is between those individual actions and a collective action. Finally, even if a collective action is unwarranted, the proper remedy is not to dismiss the action but to convert it to individual actions.

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

FINCHER v. SOUTH BEND HERITAGE FOUNDATION (May 10, 2010)

The South Bend Housing Authority (SBHA) evicted Marshall Fincher from one of its public housing units. Fincher then requested tenancy, under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act, in a building owned by the South Bend Heritage Foundation (SBHF). Based on the eviction, SBHF denied his application without a hearing. Fincher brought suit against SBHF. The district court granted summary judgment to SBHF, concluding that Fincher did not have a property interest in any specific SBHF housing and that he failed to identify any contract term between SBHF and HUD for which he was a claimed third-party beneficiary. Fincher appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Wood and District Judge St. Eve affirmed. The Court noted that its 1984 decision in Eidson v. Pierce held that there was no property interest for a Section 8 applicant for a housing unit. Considering Fincher's request that Eidson be overruled, the Court reviewed the analysis of the case and noted that another circuit had expressly adopted its reasoning. The only circuit to squarely contradict the case did so in 1982 -- and its reasoning was considered and rejected in Eidson. The Court distinguished the few other cases brought forth by Fincher. Finding that Eidson was well reasoned and seeing no significant changes in the law since its publication, the Court declined to overturn it. With respect to the third party beneficiary claim, the Court agreed with the district court that Fincher cited no contract term or federal housing regulation that gives rise to any enforceable right.

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

WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTEE CO. (March 25, 2010)

MDK owned a gasoline station in Goshen, Indiana. In 1996, it discovered that one of its underground gasoline storage tanks was leaking. Several years later, a group of nearby residents allegedly affected by the release sued MDK for personal injury and property damage. MDK requested coverage from its insurers, including West Bend Mutual Insurance Company ("West Bend") and Federated Mutual Insurance Company "(Federated"). West Bend agreed and eventually settled the case for $4 million. Federated declined based on its policy's pollution exclusion and other limitations. West Bend sued Federated. The district court granted summary judgment to Federated, concluding that the policy’s Pollution Exclusion provided a defense to coverage and that the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage did not obligate Federated to provide coverage. The court did not address whether the Known Loss Exclusion affected coverage. West Bend appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams, and Sykes (dissenting) affirmed. The Court identified its task as to construe the policy as a whole, giving words their ordinary meaning, and construing any ambiguities against the insurer. The principal focus of the Court's approach was the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in American States. That case also dealt with a release from a gasoline storage tank. The policy in question contained a Pollution Exclusion that excluded coverage for certain losses arising out of the release of "pollutants." The definition of "pollutants" was identical to that in the Federated policy and did not mention motor fuels or gasoline. The Indiana Supreme Court found that the policy did not unambiguously identify gasoline as a pollutant. It resolved the ambiguity against the insurer and found coverage to exist. Although the definition of "pollutant" was identical in the policies, the Court noted that the Federated policy's Pollution Exclusion did include "motor fuels," which included gasoline. Thus, the Court concluded that the Federated Pollution Exclusion unambiguously and explicitly excluded gasoline contamination from the policy's coverage. The Court proceeded to consider both the excess liability coverage and the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage as possible sources for coverage. It concluded that; a) the excess coverage was coextensive with the primary coverage, and thus also excluded gasoline contamination, and b) the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage did not cover the loss. That coverage only applies to abandoned product and knowingly completed market transactions, neither of which is present here.

Judge Sykes dissented. She concurred with the majority's treatment of the policy’s Pollution Exclusion but disagreed with its treatment of the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage. Specifically, she disagreed that the case relied upon by the majority created a general rule of insurance law that the coverage only applies to abandoned product or knowingly completed market transactions. Without that general rule, Judge Sykes would conclude that the plain policy language covers the loss.

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

SCHMIDT v. EAGLE WASTE & RECYCLING (March 22, 2010)

Eagle Waste & Recycling hired Tammy Schmidt as a sales representative. Eagle is in the business of residential and commercial waste removal services. Schmidt spent most of her time outside the office on sales calls. When she was in the office, she managed her sales calls and plans, she worked on marketing and advertising plans for the business, she was responsible for customer service and customer database maintenance, and she ordered parts and authorized repairs. Schmidt was compensated with a base salary and a commission. Schmidt brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for overtime. Eagle filed for summary judgment – Schmidt responded but not in accordance with local rules. When Eagle pointed out the error, Schmidt sought to modify her response but she waited two weeks and did not file her proposed modification with her request. The court denied her request and granted summary judgment to Eagle. Schmidt appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed the procedural issue. It remarked that it “routinely” affirms district courts’ strict adherence to the local rules regarding summary judgment. Particularly here, where Schmidt did not respond quickly after she became aware of the error, the district court did not abuse its discretion. On the merits, the Court noted that an “outside salesperson” is exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. An outside salesperson is one whose primary duty is making sales and who is regularly engaged in activity outside the office. Although it is the employer’s burden to prove the exemption and the exemption is narrowly construed against the employer, the Court concluded Schmidt was exempt. She spent the majority of her time outside the office and much of her work at the office was incidental to her outside sales work. Alternatively, the Court concluded that Schmidt was exempt under the FSLA’s combination exemption, which exempts persons who perform a combination of otherwise exempt duties. The majority of Schmidt’s non-sales duties were duties that are exempt under the administrative employee exemption. If she does not qualify as exempt purely on the basis of her sales work, she certainly does on the basis of her combined sales and administrative work.

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

SANDRA T.E. v. GRINDLE (March 17, 2010)

Three female elementary school classmates at Pershing Elementary School attended a seminar on "inappropriate touching" at their school in May of 2001. After the seminar, they wrote a short letter to the presenter stating that they were uncomfortable with the conduct of their band teacher. The presenter shared the note with Karen Grindle, Pershing's principal. Although Grindle met with the band teacher, the students, some parents, and the school's social worker, the accounts of their meetings varied. The allegations are that Grindle downplayed the significance and the seriousness of the accusations. Additional incidents surfaced in January and April of the following year. Again, Grindle is alleged to have minimized the significance of the incidents. One of the students who wrote the original letter in 2001 revealed to her mother, in 2005, her version of what happened. Her mother informed the police, a criminal investigation was launched, other victims came forward, and the band teacher pleaded guilty to multiple counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Several of the children and their parents filed an action pursuant to section 1983, alleging a violation of their equal protection and substantive due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment on the section 1983 claim to all defendants except Grindle and the band teacher. Grindle appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Hamilton affirmed. The basis of Grindle's appeal is her claim to qualified immunity. The Court recited the familiar two-part test: whether a constitutional right was violated, and whether the right was "clearly established" at the time of the conduct. With respect to the equal protection claim, the Court concluded that well-developed law at the time of Grindle's conduct held that a supervisor could be liable for deliberately ignoring an equal protection violation of her subordinate. In addition, the sexual harassment by the subordinate was a well-established equal protection violation. The Court concluded that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that Grindle intentionally discriminated against the girls to withstand summary judgment. With respect to the substantive due process claim, Grindle argued that she had no duty to protect the students from the abuse at the hands of the band teacher. The Court agreed that state officials do not generally have an obligation to protect citizens from violence, but noted the "special relationship" exception to that rule. Although the Court agreed that it had once rejected the "special relationship" theory in the student context, it also noted that the Third Circuit held otherwise in Stoneking. The Stoneking decision has been recognized in the circuit as one that is viable and, in fact, has been followed on several occasions in the district courts of the circuit. The Court concluded that a reasonable elementary school principal should have concluded that she could be liable for ignoring, or even covering up, a teacher's sexual abuse of a student. Finally, the Court noted that the plaintiffs allege that Grindle's own actions establish the constitutional violation, and not just her mere failure to act or prevent. Thus, they meet the test of Iqbal.

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

REGER DEVELOPMENT v. NATIONAL CITY BANK (January 20, 2010)

Reger Development is an Illinois real estate development company. In 2007, the company opened a $750,000 line of credit with National City Bank. The company signed a promissory note and provided the personal guarantee of its principal, Kevin Reger. In several places, the note makes reference to the fact that it is payable "on demand." The company made its payments in a timely manner for the first year. Nevertheless, the bank asked it to pay down $125,000 of principal. Reger did so. A month later, the bank advised Reger that it was reducing the amount of the line of credit and also wanted to restructure some of the principal and secure it with a mortgage. The bank told Reger that it was possible that they would demand payment of the entire amount if he did not agree to the modifications. Reger brought suit, alleging breach of contract and fraud. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. Reger appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams, and Sykes affirmed. The Court noted that Illinois law generally implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in a contract. It does not apply, however, to demand notes. Reger argued that general references to due dates and default provisions in the note were inconsistent with a demand instrument. The Court noted the repeated and explicit references in the instrument to National City's right to demand payment at any time. The note is clearly and unambiguously a demand note, concluded the Court. Since it is a demand instrument, the bank's insistence on modifications did not amount to a breach. With respect to the fraud count, the Court focused on the intent element. It stated that Reger must establish that the bank intended to and did induce him. In order to meet that element, Reger asked the court to infer that the bank intentionally drafted ambiguous documents so as to mislead him. The Court had already considered the ambiguity of the document with respect to the breach of contract claim. Not only had it not found it ambiguous, it found it rather straightforward. Reger failed to allege the element of intent with the particularity necessary in a fraud count -- the dismissal of that count is affirmed.

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

KNIGHT v. WISEMAN (December 22, 2009)

Shortly before Rick Knight began serving a prison term, he had surgery on his shoulder. Although he had no medical work restrictions, he did advise prison personnel of the surgery and some lingering pain. Nevertheless, several months later, he was transferred to a work camp. Prison inmates at the work camp participate in the work gangs, typically trimming trees and picking up roadside logs. At the camp, Knight participated in several work details without complaint, although he was generally successful in finding the less-strenuous tasks. On February 16, Knight was assigned to a work gang with Officers Wiseman and Wiedau. Although Knight again selected easier tasks, the officers insisted he do more. They were unaware of his shoulder complaints. The result -- he re-injured his shoulder throwing a log. A third officer returned Knight to the camp, although he took a short detour to run an errand on the way. Knight was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff. He brought suit against the two officers pursuant to § 1983, alleging violations of this Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, concluding that they did not act with deliberate indifference. Knight appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion and Wood affirmed. Two elements are required to state a claim for an Eighth amendment violation. There must be a serious medical condition and the plaintiff must demonstrate deliberate indifference on the part of the prison official to that condition. Deliberate indifference requires a showing that the defendant was actually aware of the serious medical condition. Here, there is no evidence in the record that the officers were aware of Knight's condition when they first ordered him to work. Although one of the officers ordered Knight back to work after his first complaint of pain, he quickly retracted his order when he realized the seriousness of Knight's injury. Finally, the Court rejected Knight's argument that the few hour delay in receiving treatment, including the brief detour, amounted to deliberate indifference. Such a claim would require medical evidence that showed his condition deteriorated due to the delay, which does not exist here.

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

PRO'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL v. CITY OF COUNTRY CLUB HILLS (December 16, 2009)

Pro's Sports Bar & Grill is located in Country Club Hills, Illinois. Pro's submitted an application for a liquor license. Pursuant to local procedure, the City Council considered an ordinance on November 26, 2007 for the granting of that license. There is significant dispute about what happened at the council meeting. At a minimum, there is confusion about the formalities undertaken. There certainly was discussion about granting a license with limited hours. In any event, at the end of the meeting, an ordinance granting the license was approved. A Class A license with regular hours was issued. Shortly thereafter, however, the license was reissued as a Class A-1 license (a category of license not even defined in the municipal code). The local police began enforcing the license as if it had the limited hours which were discussed in the earlier council meeting. In 2008, when Pro's applied for a reissuance of the license, it was issued with limited hours, even though the normal practice is to be issued a license on its original terms and conditions. Pro's filed suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging a violation of its procedural due process rights. The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the limited hours. The City of Country Club Hills appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion and Wood affirmed. The Court started with its two-part test for approaching a procedural due process claim. It first identifies whether there is a protected liberty or property interest and then asks whether a party was deprived of its interest without due process. The principal issue in dispute was whether the original license contained the limited hours. If it did, the renewal did not result in any deprivation. If it did not, the renewal restrictions would have resulted in a deprivation. The bare language of the original ordinance granted an unrestricted license. The Court found the language of the ordinance unambiguous and rejected the defendants' argument that it should be interpreted otherwise because of either the intent of the City Council or because it was a scrivener's error. Having found a deprivation of the property interest, there was little dispute about the City's failure to provide adequate process -- since it provided none. Finally, the Court found no error in the lower court's balancing of the preliminary injunction factors.
 

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

JOHNSON v. WAL-MART STORES (December 1, 2009)

Candace Johnson visited her local Wal-Mart store in January 2008. Although she did not possess a Firearm Owners Identification Card, a salesclerk nevertheless sold her some bullets. Tragically, Candace Johnson then shot and killed herself. Her husband and the administrator of her estate, Mark Johnson, sued Wal-Mart for negligence and wrongful death. The district court dismissed the claims on the ground that suicide is an independent intervening event, negating proximate cause. Johnson appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum and Evans affirmed. The Court recited the traditional elements of a negligence claim: a duty, a breach, and proximate cause. Historically, Illinois courts have found that suicide is unforeseeable and its presence breaks the chain of causation that is necessary for probable cause. The Court agreed that the sale of the bullets violated federal law and amounted to prima facie evidence of negligence, since the federal law is a public safety statute. The Court concluded, however, that Illinois courts continue to find that suicide breaks the chain of causation.

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

LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY HOSPITAL v. SEBELIUS (November 24, 2009)

Little Company of Mary Hospital (the "Hospital") participates in the federal Medicare program. Because it serves a disproportionate number of low-income patients, it is entitled to an adjustment to its payments based on a formula that takes into account both Medicaid patient-days and Supplemental Security Income patient-days. Under the reimbursement scheme, the hospital submits its reports and its assigned Intermediary reviews and issues a Notice of Program Reimbursement (NPR). The NPR is final if not appealed within 180 days. Beyond the direct appeal process, however, an Intermediary can reopen a specific issue within three years, on its own or at a provider's request. The Intermediary then issues a revised NPR. The revised NPR is subject to the same appeal rights, but only with respect to those issues actually reopened. The Hospital did not appeal the NPR issued in September 2000, covering the period ending June 1998. It did, however, request a reopening within three years. It requested a recalculation of both its Medicaid and SSI patient-days. The Intermediary granted the reopening with respect to Medicaid patient-days but did not mention SSI patient-days. When the Intermediary issued its revised NPR with adjusted Medicaid days, the Hospital appealed with respect to both the revised Medicaid days and the refusal to adjust SSI days. After it exhausted its administrative remedies without success, the Hospital filed suit. The court denied the Hospital's requested discovery and granted summary judgment against it. The Hospital appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum and Rovner affirmed. The Court identified the issue as whether the intermediary reopened the SSI calculation when it reopened the Medicaid calculation. If the SSI calculation was never reopened, it is not subject to appeal. The Hospital argues that the SSI calculation was reopened -- but that the Intermediary simply denied relief. The Court relied on the Intermediary's notice of reopening. The notice of reopening is required by the regulations and here gave the Hospital notice that the Intermediary was reopening the Medicaid calculation. It did not provide notice of a reopening of the SSI calculation. The Court concluded that the silence with respect to the SSI calculation indicated that it was not reopened. With respect to the discovery requests, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The general rule is that administrative review is confined to the administrative record. The Hospital failed to make its case for an exception.

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

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

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

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

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

NEMSKY v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY (August 3, 2009)

George Nemsky had been an engineer at ConocoPhillips’ Wood River Refinery for over twenty years and had a solid reputation. He was represented by Local 399 of the International Union of Operating Engineers (the Union). In 2004, ConocoPhillips adopted a substance abuse policy which provided for random drug and alcohol testing. It also provided that any employee who had a confirmed positive test result would be terminated. Although the Union filed a collective grievance over the company's adoption of the policy as well as an unfair labor practice charge, it eventually entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the company in which it agreed not to grieve a termination under the policy. In 2006, Nemsky was selected for a random drug and alcohol test shortly after he used solvent to remove cement from his shoes. The test came back as a confirmed positive. ConocoPhillips terminated Nemsky's employment. The Union indicated its intent to arbitrate his termination. Nemsky filed an action against the Union and ConocoPhillips with the NLRB, complaining that the Union and ConocoPhillips never arbitrated his termination. Nemsky filed suit against both ConocoPhillips and the Union. Nemsky alleged that ConocoPhillips breached the Collective Bargaining Agreement and that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. Nemsky appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood and Tinder affirmed. The Court identified Nemsky's claim as a "hybrid 301" action. In such an action, Nemsky must prevail on both his claim that the company breached the Collective Bargaining Agreement and his claim that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. The Court first addressed the fair representation claim. In order to prevail on that claim, the Court noted that Nemsky must show that the Union’s conduct was arbitrary or discriminatory or in bad faith. Nemsky argued that the Union acted arbitrarily in agreeing to the Memorandum of Understanding. The Court concluded otherwise. The Union’s unfair labor practice charge had been dismissed and no other union in the country had been successful in challenging the company's policy. The Court did, however, note that there was evidence that the Union failed to arbitrate Nemsky's termination after he filed his charges. The Court concluded that that was enough to preclude summary judgment on the fair representation aspect of Nemsky's claim. With respect to the company's breach however, the Court concluded that the Union’s agreement to the Memorandum of Understanding defeated any allegation that Nemsky's termination was a breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Since he was required to prevail on both aspects of the hybrid claim, the Court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

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

WOLF v. KENNELLY (July 23, 2009)

Ford Kennelly, an Indiana citizen, received a $1.3 million arbitration award, jointly and severally, against commodities brokers Rosenthal Collins Group ("RCG") and Ken Wolf. Wolf filed a petition to vacate in state court. He included a request for declaratory relief against RCG, alleging that RCG had made a demand for indemnity against him. Kennelly removed the petition to federal court and asked that RCG be realigned as a petitioner. RCG was an Illinois citizen. Its presence as a defendant prevented removal. Wolf moved to remand, opposing the realignment of RCG. Several months later, the parties discovered that one of RCG's limited partners was an Indiana citizen. Since Kennelly was also an Indiana citizen, diversity would be destroyed if RCG was realigned as a petitioner. The district court granted the motion to remand. The court then denied Wolf's request for attorneys' fees, concluding that the case was an exceptional one not warranting a fee award. Wolf appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Kanne reversed and remanded. The Court first rejected Wolf's argument that the court's brief minute order, without much discussion or analysis, was an abuse of discretion. The Court noted that the issue had been fully briefed and the judge explained his rationale on the record, although not repeating it in the minute order. On the merits, the Court concluded that Wolf did not have an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. The "objectively reasonable basis" standard is similar to the qualified immunity doctrine. A district court may award fees if "clearly established" law prevents removal. At the time Kennelly sought removal, the long-standing precedent in the circuit was that realignment of a party was improper if an actual and substantial controversy existed between the plaintiff and that party. The fact that Wolf and RCG shared an interest in escaping liability altogether did not justify the realignment. The Court remanded for consideration of the fee petition.

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

NARDUCCI v. MOORE (July 9, 2009)

Many years ago, the Bellwood, Illinois comptroller became concerned that some finance department employees were making personal phone calls on village time and also were subjected to harassing phone calls from irate village residents. The village approved a proposal to begin recording department phone calls. Nicholas Narducci took over as controller several years later. When he learned about the recording, he advised village trustees that it was illegal, he alerted the FBI and he directed the Chief of Police to discontinue the activity. In 2001, he brought an action against the village, the mayor, and the police chief on behalf of a class of finance department employees whose calls were recorded. He brought a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 and an illegal wiretapping claim under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as well as state law claims. The mayor and the police chief moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied the motion with respect to the § 1983 claims and some of the Title III claims. The mayor and the police chief appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Lawrence affirmed. The issue on appeal, whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, required the Court to examine whether there had been a violation of a constitutional right and, if so, whether it was "well-established." With respect to the Fourth Amendment violation, the Court looked to the totality of the circumstances. It first found, drawing all reasonable inferences in Narducci's favor, that he had demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court next concluded that Narducci presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment, given that the recording lasted more than six years with no notice to the employees. Although the Court realized that no Supreme Court or prior Seventh Circuit decision squarely addressed the issue, it concluded based on decisions of other circuits that the right was sufficiently clear to preclude qualified immunity. Lastly, the Court rejected the defendants' qualified immunity defense to the Title III claims. The Court concluded that the lower court did not err in holding that defendants waived the argument by not presenting it in their opening brief. 

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

CASTRONOVO v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (July 6, 2009)

Sandra Castronovo died the day after her car was struck by a truck driven by Kenneth Lively. At the time of the accident, Lively was employed by and driving a truck owned by Doug Lavery, Ltd. He was hauling a trailer owned by GE Capital Corp. and leased to Greif Brothers Corp., who loaned it to Lavery. Lavery and Lively were named insureds under a $1 million policy issued by Owners Insurance. Travelers Property Casualty Company issued a $2 million policy to Greif. National Union issued a $25 million umbrella policy to Grief which covered permissive users of vehicles owned by Grief. The National Union policy provided excess coverage to the Travelers policy and provided primary coverage for covered risks that were not covered at all by any other insurance. Sandra’s husband John sued Lively, Lavery, GE and Greif. Owners provided a defense to Lively and Lavery but eventually tendered its $1 million policy limit to the court. Travelers defended GE and Greif under the Greif policy. Travelers refused to defend Lavery and made no decision with respect to Lively. In early 2005, Greif and Travelers both spoke with National Union about the case. And National Union continued to follow the developments. In September the court approved a consent judgment against Lively and Lavery in the amount of $6 million. They assigned their rights of coverage to Castronovo in return for a covenant not to execute on their personal assets. National Union learned of the consent judgment only after it was entered. In October, Travelers determined that Lively and Lavery were both insureds and paid their $2 million policy limit to Castronovo. Castronovo sued National Union to recover the approximate $3 million balance. The court granted summary judgment to National Union, holding that Lively and Lavery breached the policy by not notifying National Union of the consent judgment. Castronovo appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Flaum affirmed. The only issue on appeal was whether National Union breached its duty to defend under the umbrella policy. The policy required National Union to defend in two circumstances: a) when all underlying policy limits were exhausted, or b) when the National Union policy provides the only coverage. Castronovo conceded that the former did not apply because the policy limits of the other policies were not exhausted until after the consent judgment was entered. The Court rejected the argument that a duty to defend arose under the “only coverage” clause once Owners tendered its policy limit and Travelers was disputing coverage. The Court ruled that the clauses were mutually exclusive. The first always applies when there is other coverage and the second only applies when there is no other coverage. The Court concluded that National Union had no duty to defend under either clause. The Court also concluded that National Union had no duty to defend because Lively and Lavery never actually requested a defense, a requirement under Ohio law.

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

KASTEN v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTIC CORP. (June 29, 2009)

Kevin Kasten worked at one of Saint-Gobain's facilities in Wisconsin. In 2006, Kasten received three warnings regarding his use of the on-site time clock. The third warning included a statement that it was the last step of the disciplinary process and that another violation could result in further discipline, up to termination. Kasten alleges, and Saint-Gobain denies, that he verbally complained about the legality of the time clock’s location about the same time he received the third warning. He alleges that his complaints consisted of a) telling his supervisor, b) telling a human resources representative, c) telling a lead operator and d) telling the lead operator he was considering a lawsuit. Saint-Gobain suspended Kasten after his fourth violation and later terminated his employment. Kasten alleges, and Saint-Gobain denies, that he also complained about the legality of the clock’s placement at a meeting regarding his suspension. Kasten brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for his complaints. The court granted summary judgment to Saint-Gobain. Kasten appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Kapala affirmed. Kasten alleges that Saint-Gobain violated the FLSA when it terminated him after he "filed any complaint." The Court focused on two issues: whether the FLSA's use of the term "complaint" includes informal, intra-company complaints not formally filed with any body and whether it includes wholly verbal complaints. The district court had answered the first question yes but the second question no. With respect to the intra-company complaint issue, the Court relied on the plain language of the statute and the majority of other appellate courts to conclude that "any complaint" includes internal complaints. If then decided, however, that purely verbal complaints are not protected. The Court relied again on the plain language of the statute and the use of the word "file," which connotes the use of a writing, and the fact that Congress used broader language (i.e., “opposed any practice”) in analogous provisions of other statutes.

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

JAFARI v. WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC (June 17, 2009)

Robert Jafari, a Wisconsin resident, liked to gamble. In September, 2005, Wynn Las Vegas and Caesar’s Palace extended him credit in the total amount of $1,250,000. Each of the credit agreements contained a Nevada choice-of-law provision. After Jafari failed to repay the credit advance and his bank denied payment, Wynn and Caesar’s sued Jafari. Jafari later filed an individual bankruptcy proceeding in Wisconsin. Wynn and Caesar’s filed proofs of claim. Jafari and the bankruptcy trustee objected to the claims on the grounds that gambling debts are unenforceable in Wisconsin. The bankruptcy court applied Wisconsin choice-of-law rules, which led it to apply Wisconsin substantive law, which led it to conclude that the gambling claims were unenforceable under Wisconsin law. On appeal to the district court, the court concluded that both federal and Wisconsin choice-of-law rules would require the application of Nevada substantive law. On remand, the bankruptcy court applied Nevada substantive law and upheld the claims. Jafari and the trustee appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Evans and Williams affirmed. The Court noted a tension surrounding whether a bankruptcy court should apply the choice-of-law principles from federal law or from the forum state. Since neither the Supreme Court nor the Seventh Circuit has decided the issue, the Court asked itself whether the question mattered. The parties agreed both that federal common law would apply Nevada substantive law and that Nevada would allow the claims. Therefore, the Court undertook an analysis of Wisconsin choice-of-law principles to see if it would end up elsewhere. Wisconsin courts apply a "grouping of contacts" rule in contract cases. Under that rule, the law of the forum state is applied unless contacts with a non-forum state are greater. Here, the Court concluded that the relevant contacts (place of negotiation, place of contracting, place of performance, location of the subject matter, domiciles of the parties) are undoubtedly greater for Nevada than they are for Wisconsin. Therefore, Wisconsin would apply the substantive law of Nevada and also uphold the claims. The Court rejected Jafari’s argument that notwithstanding the "grouping of contacts" rule, a Wisconsin court would apply its own law if applying the law of another state would contravene Wisconsin public policy. Having decided that an application of either federal common law or Wisconsin choice-of-law principles would lead to the same conclusion, the Court declined to resolve the choice-of-law issue.

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

BAILEY v. ROOB (June 8, 2009)

The State of Indiana has a Medicaid for the Disabled program that provides medical benefits to persons who suffer from disabilities. A consent decree resulting from earlier litigation required the State to follow certain procedures in collecting and evaluating applications. It must obtain complete medical histories for twelve months, it must get additional medical information when necessary, and it must ensure that the medical records are complete before an eligibility determination. Plaintiffs filed a petition to hold the defendants in civil contempt for violating these requirements of the consent decree. In discovery, the State produced a representative sample of benefit applications, consisting of 26 files. The district court reviewed the files and concluded 17 were complete, five contained only a summary form of medical history, and four were “less complete” than the five that contained the form. The court denied the contempt motion, however, because neither party presented evidence of what should be considered a "complete" history. In fact, the court invited the plaintiffs to refile their motion and introduce testimony on that issue. Instead, plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion and Rovner affirmed. The Court first rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the district court imposed an erroneous burden of proof. Plaintiffs claimed that the court required them to prove the State's lack of reasonable diligence instead of treating it as an affirmative defense. The Court held that it is a plaintiff's burden to foreclose a finding of reasonable diligence by clear and convincing evidence. Alternatively, the Court concluded that the district court rejected plaintiffs’ motion simply because they had not shown a violation, not that they had failed to foreclose reasonable diligence. The Court next rejected plaintiffs’ argument that it had shown a violation, at least with respect to the four least-complete files. The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to make factual findings that the four files violated the consent order. The district court found the arguments of the parties inconclusive on what constituted a complete medical file. Finally, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that "complete medical history" always requires a treating physician's records. A court reads the requirements of the consent decree just like it reads the requirements of a contract. The Court concluded that, in similar contexts, it has not interpreted "complete" in a strict, absolute sense. The Court was unable, on the incomplete record, to categorically conclude that a summary form of medical history is always a violation of the regulation. 

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

LUCERO V. NETTLE CREEK SCHOOL CORPORATION (May 29, 2009)

Sharon Lucero, a female Hispanic, was hired by the Nettle Creek School Corporation in 2001 to teach English at the Hagerstown Junior - Senior High School (the "School"). The School served students in grades 7 through 12 in the same building. Lucero was informed, at the time of her hire, that she could be assigned to teach English at any of the grade levels. For her first two years, Lucero taught 7th and 8th grade English, respectively. For the third year, the School assented to her request to teach 12th grade English. The year progressed quite differently than her prior years of service. The principal criticized her performance, the students complained of her teaching style, and the parents complained of her grading policies, to name just a few of her problems. In addition, two specific incidents late in the year stood out. In one, a student showed a photograph in class of a partially naked classmate. In another, a group of students left several Playboy magazines in her classroom. The students involved in these two incidents were all suspended. After the school year, the School hired a new English teacher, a white male. The school assigned the new teacher to 12th grade English and reassigned Lucero to 7th grade English. Lucero sued the School, challenging her reassignment under theories of retaliation, discrimination, hostile work environment and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment to the School. Lucero appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Evans affirmed. The Court addressed each of Lucero’s legal theories in turn. With respect to her retaliation claim, the Court noted that she was required to establish that she suffered a materially adverse employment action. The Court addressed the reassignment in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern. Burlington Northern tells us that a court should apply an objective standard for assessing whether the reassignment might have dissuaded a reasonable person from making a charge of discrimination. Here, Lucero was reassigned to teach the same subject in the same building under the same conditions. The Court concluded that her reassignment was not a materially adverse action. The Court similarly found that Lucero failed to demonstrate a materially adverse employment action with respect to her discrimination claim, albeit under a different test. Since her compensation and work conditions were unchanged, Lucero attempted to establish that her reassignment was an adverse employment action by asserting that it would negatively impact her career prospects. The Court found that she failed to submit adequate evidence of a negative career impact and upheld the lower court on the discrimination claim. Next, the Court concluded that Lucero's allegations of hostile work environment failed as a matter of law. Although depicting inappropriate behavior, the Court concluded that they were isolated incidents, were not related to her gender or national origin, and did not support employer liability. Finally, the Court summarily rejected Lucero's breach of contract claims.

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

BROOKS v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO (May 1, 2009)

Terence Brooks was arrested, allegedly without probable cause, in May 2004 by two Chicago police officers. The charges were dropped and he was released after about three weeks in custody. A few months later, he was indicted as a result of evidence seized at the time of the arrest. A warrant was issued when he failed to appear in court on the indictment. Brooks was arrested on the warrant by different police officers in May of 2007. Again, the charges were dismissed and Brooks was released. Brooks brought an action against the City of Chicago and the police officers who were responsible for the 2004 arrest. He brought due process and false arrest claims under § 1983, as well as claims under state law. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that, although it purported to complain of the 2007 arrest, it depended entirely on the 2004 arrest. Claims based on the 2004 arrest were barred by the statute of limitations. Brooks appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion and Rovner affirmed. The Court recognized that Brooks' theory was that the 2007 arrest culminated from a series of events that began with the allegedly unlawful 2004 arrest. The Court noted, however, that the existence of the warrant supported probable cause for the 2007 arrest. One cannot maintain a false arrest claim based on an arrest made with probable cause. Even if Brooks had a false arrest claim in 2004, his arrest in 2007 cannot revive that claim. The Court also rejected Brooks' due process claim on the grounds that it was merely a recast false imprisonment claim.

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

SMITH v. THE HOPE SCHOOL (March 30, 2009)

Tanum Smith was an aide at the Hope School, a residential facility for developmentally disabled children. On two different occasions in 2006, Smith was injured by students. After the second incident, Smith took some time off and received medical attention. Although an independent medical examination approved her return to work without restrictions, her primary care physician restricted her to light-duty and to assignments that did not require her to interact with the school's residents. The school assigned Smith to its dietary department so that she would not interact with residents. Later, she complained that a student approached her in the kitchen. She informed the school that she was leaving and would not return until the school provided her with a safe work environment. There is significant disagreement in the record over what happened next. What is not disputed is that Smith was absent from work many days and, when she submitted her FMLA paperwork, she had altered the physician’s certification form to add a diagnosis for "previous depression." The school found out about the alteration, denied her request for FMLA leave, and began disciplinary proceedings because of her absences. Ultimately, Hope School terminated Smith's employment because of the absences. Smith brought this action alleging that the school interfered with her FMLA rights and that they terminated her employment in retaliation for requesting FMLA leave. The district court granted summary judgment to Hope School. Smith appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Kapala affirmed. The Court first addressed her interference claim. In order to prevail, the Court indicated that she must demonstrate that she was eligible for FMLA protection, that she was covered, that she was entitled to leave, that she provided notice, and that her employer denied her benefits. Here, the only issue is whether an employer can deny FMLA leave because an employee submits false paperwork. The Court agreed with the district court that an employer can deny a request for FMLA leave when an employee adds a diagnosis to the physician’s certification form without the physician's knowledge. The Court concluded that her retaliation claim was closely linked to the interference claim. Because Hope School was entitled to deny her request for leave, they were entitled to terminate her employment on account of her unexcused absences.

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

MARION v. THE CITY OF CORYDON (March 23, 2009)

Having been caught shoplifting, Trent Marion fled from police, scuffled with police, fled again, and led police on a high-speed chase down a divided highway. For miles, Marion eluded the police and their attempts to stop him. Even with three deflated tires, Marion refused to stop. Eventually, Marion swerved into the median and drove toward the other side of the highway. The police surrounded and fired shots at the vehicle. Marion continued to rev his engine and shift from forward to reverse. The police continued firing at the vehicle until Marion stopped. Marion suffered serious gunshot wounds. He filed suit under §1983, claiming that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Although Marion opposed the motion, he did not file an affidavit. He did submit an affidavit with a motion to reconsider. The court denied the motion. Marion appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Kapala affirmed. The Court first concluded that it would not consider Marion's affidavit. The Court could consider it only if it consisted of newly discovered evidence, which it did not. On the merits of Marion's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, the Court stated that it would apply an objective reasonableness standard and consider the totality of the circumstances. The Court concluded that it was reasonable for the police officers to believe that Marion posed a threat to their safety and the safety of nearby motorists while he was in the median. The amount of force they employed was therefore reasonable.

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

CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORP. v. ELSTON SELF SERVICE WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC. (March 12, 2009)

Elston Self-Service Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("Elston") is a wholesale cigarette distributor. Lorillard Tobacco Co. ("Lorillard") filed a complaint against Elston, alleging that it sold counterfeit cigarettes bearing a Lorillard trademark. Elston was insured by Capitol Indemnity Corp. When Elston claimed coverage, Capitol Indemnity disclaimed any duty to indemnify or defend. Capitol Indemnity sought a declaratory judgment that it had no such duty. The district court ruled that Capitol Indemnity had an obligation to defend Elston in the Lorillard litigation. Capitol Indemnity appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Manion affirmed. The Court addressed the policy provisions. At issue was an exclusion to the policy's coverage of "advertising injury." The policy excluded from coverage any injury arising out of the publication of “material” whose first publication took place before the policy period. Capitol Indemnity argued that Elston's years of lawful sales of Lorillard cigarettes before the beginning of the policy term constituted a prior publication. The counterfeit packaging was nearly identical to the Lorillard packaging. The Court rejected Capitol Indemnity’s position. It interpreted the term "material" in the policy exclusion to refer to the same wrongful material alleged in the complaint. Because there was no allegation of counterfeit sales prior to the policy term, there was no prior publication. Under Illinois law, Capitol Indemnity is required to defend Elston if the underlying complaint potentially falls within the scope of coverage. Having found that the prior publication exclusion does not apply, the Court affirmed the district court’s finding of a duty to defend.

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

AKANDE v. GROUNDS (February 9, 2009)

Adetunji Akande was employed by the Illinois Department of Corrections. He served as a clinical casework supervisor in the clinical services division at the Robinson Correctional Facility (“RCF”). His job was subject to the Illinois Personnel Code. The Code provided that he could not be fired or demoted except for cause. The division was responsible for counseling and disciplinary activity at RCF. The division was run by a clinical services supervisor. The casework supervisors were intermediate managers. Their responsibilities included: resolving and reporting on serious disciplinary matters, supervising the delivery of services by the correctional counselors, evaluating correctional counselors, and performing other like duties. As of late 2003, Akande was the only supervisor. A new warden, Randall Grounds, arrived in early 2004. He came to doubt Akande’s job performance, particularly as it related to inputting disciplinary reports. He instructed Akande to personally input all data at the end of each day. Akande delegated the task. Grounds repeated his instructions. Akande continued to delegate the task. Ground referred Akande for discipline. His position that he was allowed to delegate the assigned tasks notwithstanding Grounds’ instructions was rejected. He received oral and written reprimands and a three-day suspension. In early 2004, Grounds removed Akande’s supervisory responsibilities. Shortly thereafter, Grounds presented Akande with a formal memorandum of responsibilities stating that all data entry for serious discipline was the supervisor’s responsibility. Akande left RCF with a “headache,” went on disability and never returned. Akande brought this action, alleging that he was effectively eliminated from his position, in which he had a property interest. The court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Akande appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood and Williams affirmed. The Court identified the threshold question as whether Akande has been deprived of a constitutionally protected property interest. The Court agreed that state law gave Akande a property right not to be removed from his job or demoted without cause. Under the Illinois Code, “demotion” is defined as the assignment of an employee to a job of a lower grade because of the employee’s performance in the higher grade job. Here, Akande was not terminated, not told to leave, not assigned to a different job – his duties were simply altered. Therefore, he was not deprived of a property interest. Since he failed to show the deprivation of a property interest, the Court did not need to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test.

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

ESTATE OF SUSKOVICH v. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS (January 22, 2009)

Anthony Suskovich was a computer programmer and analyst. From 1996 until his unfortunate and sudden death in 2006, he provided services to WellPoint. WellPoint retained Suskovich on many projects with limited duration, although frequently one project rolled over into another. He billed WellPoint on an invoice, was paid by the hour, and his income was reported on a 1099. WellPoint adopted a preferred vendor program around 2000 under which it could only avail itself of Suskovich’s services if they were provided by a preferred vendor. Suskovich began a relationship with Trasys. Suskovich would send an invoice to WellPoint, which in turn would refer them to Trasys for payment to Suskovich. Suskovich’s income was still reported on a 1099. In 2001, Suskovich signed an “independent contractor” agreement. Suskovich worked on many different projects, sometimes on more than one at once. He usually worked at WellPoint’s offices with a computer supplied by WellPoint. In 2005, WellPoint informed Suskovich that they would not be using him anymore and asked him to train a replacement. Later, Suskovich and WellPoint had discussions about the possibility of Suskovich becoming an employee of WellPoint but nothing ever came of them. Before his death, the IRS began an investigation of Suskovich for not filing tax returns. The investigation led to his filing of returns for several years in which he listed himself as self-employed. He still had remaining tax liability when he died. His estate brought an action against WellPoint and Trasys, seeking a declaratory judgment that Suskovich was an employee of WellPoint and Trasys and for compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), benefits under ERISA, and tax indemnity. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Suskovich was an independent contractor. The Estate appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum and Sykes affirmed. First, the Court held that the district court did not give improper weight to the “independent contractor” agreement. The Court held that the court below properly followed the law of the Circuit that parties can define their relationship as long as the other factors do not lead to the opposite conclusion. The district court gave primary weight to the contract but did consider and weigh other factors. Next, the Court held that the district court properly resolved the ambiguity in the contract by considering the language of the contract as well as extrinsic evidence. The Court proceeded to the meat of the appeal – whether Suskovich was an independent contractor or an employee. The Court decided to approach the question under the 10-factor Restatement test, even though the asserted claims have different tests. ERISA claims use a 12-factor common law test. FLSA claims use a broader 6-factor test. The Supreme Court has held that the ERISA test is similar to the Restatement test and the Estate relied on the Restatement test. The Court evaluated and weighed the ten factors: a) extent of control, b) whether the worker is engaged in a distinct occupation, c) whether the type of work is generally done without supervision, d) skill required, e) who supplies the tools and workplace, f) length of employment, g) whether the payment is by time or job, h) whether the work is the regular business of the employer, i) the parties’ belief, and j) whether the principal is in business. The Court concluded that only two factors weighed at all in Suskovich’s favor: who supplied the tools and whether the work was the regular part of the business. The former is a relatively unimportant factor and the latter only favors Suskovich as against Trasys. All of the other factors weighed against Suskovich. The district court was correct in awarding summary judgment to WellPoint and Trasys.

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

ROSS-TOUSEY v. NEARY (December 17, 2008)

Marvin Ross-Tousey and his wife Deborah (the “debtors”) filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Because their household income was above the median income level, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) subjected their petition to a means test. The means test is used to distinguish those debtors who can repay a portion of their debts from those who cannot. A debtor who has enough disposable income to pay at least $166.67 per month to his creditors is expected to file under Chapter 13. A Chapter 7 filing is presumptively abusive in that circumstance. The debtors claimed a vehicle ownership expense allowance of over $800, although they had no debt or lease payments. With that deduction, they had no disposable income and met the means test. The United States Trustee (“UST”) moved to dismiss their petition for abuse. The UST first asserted abuse based on a totality of the circumstances. The UST later amended the motion to include presumptive abuse on the grounds that they should not have taken the vehicle ownership allowance. The bankruptcy court denied the motion. The district court reversed, holding that a debtor cannot claim a vehicle ownership allowance for vehicles he owns outright. The district court remanded for proceedings to determine whether the debtors could rebut the presumption. The debtors appealed. The UST moved to dismiss for absence of finality because the bankruptcy court had not ruled on whether the presumption could be rebutted. The debtors conceded that they could not rebut the presumption.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner and Williams reversed and remanded. The Court first considered two jurisdictional issues: whether there was a “final order” to review and whether the time period for the UST’s amendment of the motion to dismiss was jurisdictional. On the first issue, the Court found that both the bankruptcy court’s order and the district court’s order were final. In the case of the bankruptcy order, the only remaining act was to distribute the debtors’ assets. In the district court’s reversal and remand, the only obligation of the bankruptcy court was to either dismiss the petition or convert it to a Chapter 13 proceeding, at the option of the debtors. The presence of these continued ministerial acts did not divest the Court of jurisdiction. On the timing issue, the Court stated that the statute set a deadline for filing a motion to dismiss. The UST’s original motion met the deadline but the amendment to add the presumptive abuse ground did not. The Court appreciated that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowles seems to say that filing deadlines found in statutes are jurisdictional, while those found elsewhere are not. Nevertheless, relying on the Supreme Court’s later decision in John R. Sand & Gravel and the fact that much case law would be overturned by such a reading of Bowles, the Court found a different path. In John R. Sand & Gravel, the Supreme Court distinguished between statutes of limitations designed to protect defendants from stale claims from those that that sought to achieve a “system-related goal,” with only the latter classified as jurisdictional. Since the bankruptcy deadline existed principally to protect a debtor from delay and not to achieve some broader system goal, the Court held that it was not jurisdictional and any objection was waived by the debtors.

The Court proceeded to the merits. The means test in the BAPCPA includes, in the definition of monthly expenses, “applicable" monthly expenses specified by the National and Local Standards found in the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM") and “actual" monthly expenses for other defined expenses. The vehicle ownership allowance at issue is one of two transportation components found in the Local Standards. The Court noted that the issue it faced has been litigated frequently but never decided by a circuit court. Two approaches have emerged, depending on the treatment of the word “applicable” in the statute. The IRM approach treats “applicable” as meaning “relevant” and concludes that a debtor with no lease or debt payment on a vehicle has no “relevant” cost of ownership. The Plain Language approach, on the other hand, treats “applicable” as that number “applied” by the Local Standards for the debtors’ region and number of vehicles. The Court was persuaded by the Plain Language approach. It decided that, to give effect to all the words of the statute, “applicable” could not mean the same as “actual.” Since it could not refer to the debtors’ actual expense, it must refer to the deductions listed in the Local Standards. The Court found additional support for its holding in: a) the inconsistency in the statute’s disallowance of debt as an expense and the IRM approach’s conditioning the transportation allowance on debt, b) Congress’ specific language throughout other sections of the means test to describe allowable deductions, c) an absence of any indication that Congress intended the IRM methodology to be used in the means test, d) the avoidance of an unfair result if the allowance is limited to debtors with car payments, and e) the recognition that allowing the deduction only avoids a presumption of abuse – abuse can be shown independently.  

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

FLYING J INC. v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN (December 5, 2008)

Flying J develops and operates travel plazas for truck drivers and other travelers. It purchased 50+ acres in New Haven, Indiana (the “City”) to develop a new travel plaza. The City opposed the development and took the position that it was not allowed under the then-current zoning. Flying J ultimately prevailed in the Indiana state courts on its challenge to the City’s position. Undaunted, the City amended its zoning ordinance to limit developments of this type to two acres. The Flying J development was the only parcel affected by this limitation. The City held several public meetings on the amendment but never gave Flying J specific notice of them. In August of 2007, the City advised Flying J that its development must comply with the two acre rule. Flying J filed suit in September, alleging violations of its rights under the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Flying J appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the City’s position that the Court lacked jurisdiction under the principles of Williamson County. The Supreme Court in Williamson County held that takings claims in land use cases are not ripe until the local authority has reached a final decision, including a decision on a variance application and compensation. Courts have applied the doctrine to takings claims even when they are labeled as due process or equal protection claims. The Court noted that it has created an exception for claims alleging the malicious conduct of a government agent unrelated to a legitimate state objective. Flying J’s allegations of the City’s protracted litigation, its covert amendment to the ordinance, the ordinance’s application only to Flying J, and the potential conflicts of interest of several commission members fit its claim within that exception.

The Court next addressed whether Flying J stated a claim. Relying on its precedent in Wroblewski and Lauth, the Court identified the pleading standard for a class-of-one equal protection claim. In those cases, the plaintiff must negate any set of facts that provides a rational basis for the classification challenged. Animus of the defendant comes into play only after the plaintiff has pled facts that show the irrationality of the government’s conduct. Flying J does allege facts that would show that the City took its actions in response solely to Flying J’s development but it does not allege facts to establish that the zoning amendment was irrational. Flying J’s allegations therefore do not overcome the presumption of rationality the government enjoys in cases of this nature.

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

KELLEY v. MED-1 SOLUTIONS  (November 25, 2008)

Brian Kelley received medical treatment at St. Vincent Carmel Hospital (“St. Vincent”). When Kelley failed to pay for the services, St. Vincent hired Med-1 Solutions, LLC (“Med-1”) to collect the amounts due. Although St. Vincent always owned the debt, it gave Med-1 the right to collect it. Med-1 sued Kelley in an Indiana small claims court. It attached documents to the small claims court form which indicated that the debt was owed to St. Vincent. Med-1 also attached Kelley’s financial responsibility form he had signed prior to receiving medical treatment. That form provided for payment of “reasonable attorney fees” if the debt was assigned to a collection agency. St. Vincent paid Med-1’s fees and costs and a percentage of the amount collected. Med-1’s in-house attorneys received a percentage of the attorney fees collected by Med-1. Med-1 obtained a judgment against Kelley for $892.09. Kelley and several others in a similar situation brought suit against Med-1, its owner, and its in-house attorneys. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), claiming that Med-1 was not entitled to attorney fees and that its claims that it was were false and deceptive. The district court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Williams affirmed. The issue before the Court was whether the case was controlled by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine, taken from two Supreme Court decisions, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, prohibits a lower federal court review of a decision of a state court. Plaintiffs attempted to avoid the application of Rooker-Feldman by characterizing their complaint as one attacking defendants’ representations and requests for attorneys fees, not the actual state court judgment awarding the fees. The Court did not accept the distinction. It concluded that if it found that defendants were not entitled to fees and therefore violated the FDCPA, it was also determining that the state court judgments were in error. The Court next addressed the “reasonable opportunity” exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiffs contended that they were unable to raise their FDCPA claims in the Indiana small claims venue. The Court disagreed. The plaintiffs could have transferred their case out of the small claims venue and litigated their FDCPA claims. The Court concluded that plaintiffs had a “reasonable opportunity” to litigate their claims and their complaint was properly dismissed. In addition, the Court questioned the continued viability of the “reasonable opportunity” exception since the Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries.

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

KAHN v. UNITED STATES (November 20, 2008)

Shahid Khan was a partner in several investment entities. The IRS was investigating Kahn and his wife because of its belief that the Kahns had sheltered hundreds of millions of dollars from income taxes. The IRS agent assigned to the case issued summonses to Robert Greisman, an accountant and tax shelter expert with whom Khan and his wife had met on several occasions. The Kahns had paid Greisman over $8 million dollars but, according to an IRS affidavit, they could not identify what services he provided. The Kahns filed petitions to quash the subpoenas on a number of grounds. The IRS opposed the petitions and also filed a motion to enforce the summonses. The agent’s affidavit accompanying the motion stated that the purpose of the summonses was to quantify the Kahns’ tax liability. The Kahns opposed the motion on the ground that 26 U.S.C. § 7602(d)(1) prohibited the summons because the IRS did not disclose whether the IRS had referred Greisman to the Justice Department. The district court agreed, and quashed the summons. The IRS appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Wood reversed. The Court first recognized the broad power of the IRS to issue summonses. Section 7602(d)(1) provides, however, that “[n]o summons may be issued . . . with respect to any person if a Justice Department referral is in effect with respect to such person.” The Kahns argued that the summonses were issued "with respect to" Greisman and were therefore not allowed if Greisman had been referred to the Justice Department.  The IRS, on the other hand, argued that the summonses were issued "to" Greisman but "with respect to" the Kahns since it was the Kahns' tax liability at issue. The Commissioner of the IRS has promulgated a regulation supporting the IRS'ition.  The regulation interprets the section to apply only when there is a Justice Department referral of the person whose tax liability is at stake. The Court approached the “question of first impression” under the Chevron two-part analysis. Under Chevron, the Court will uphold or strike a regulation if it is supported or opposed, respectively, by the plain meaning of the pertinent statute. If the statute is silent or not clear, the Court will determine in a second step whether the regulation is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. The Court will uphold it if it is. With respect to the plain meaning of § 7602(d)(1), the Court was attracted to the arguments of both parties. Having found their two competing interpretations both plausible, the Court necessarily found ambiguity in the statute. In its second step analysis, the Court found the Commissioner’s regulation consistent with the statute, as well as the legislative history, and a reasonable interpretation of it. As long as the Kahns were not referred to the Justice Department (which they were not), the summons to Greisman can be enforced.
 

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

ANDONISSAMY v. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO. (November 7, 2008)

Sanjay Andonissamy, a French citizen of Indian ancestry, began his employment with Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) in April of 2001. He was in the country on an HP-sponsored H-1B visa. [The following is Andonissamy’s version of the story – HP’s version differs greatly] After the events of September 11, 2001, Ken Smith, Andonissamy’s supervisor, began to make derogatory racial, ethnic, and nationalist remarks to and about Andonissamy. Andonissamy frequently complained to Smith’s supervisor. Smith placed Andonissamy on remedial performance plans, allegedly in retaliation for Andonissamy’s complaints about Smith. Andonissamy began taking medication for anxiety and depression in 2002. He was being treated, but his physician never placed him on any restricted work schedule. Andonissamy’s condition worsened in early 2003 after the deaths of his brother and nephew. In May of 2003, Smith made a false report to the company implicating Andonissamy as a security threat. HP fired Andonissamy on June 23, 2003. On September 16, Andonissamy filed an EEOC complaint alleging national origin discrimination. The EEOC dismissed his complaint and issued a right to sue letter. Andonissamy filed a complaint in federal court in April of 2004. In addition to his complaints of national origin discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Andonissamy added a Family and Medical Leave Act count. In November of 2005, Andonissamy added Smith as a defendant on an assault count. The district court dismissed Smith and granted summary judgment to HP. Andonissamy appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed Andonissamy’s Title VII hostile work environment claim. In order to survive summary judgment, Andonissamy had to show that a) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment, b) the harassment was based on his national origin, c) it was severe and pervasive enough to amount to a hostile and abusive environment, and d) there exists a basis for employer liability. The Court did not address the first three elements because it found no basis for employer liability. An employer can be vicariously liable for the conduct of a supervisor but can only be liable for the conduct of a co-worker if the company was negligent in discovering or remedying the harassment. A supervisor for purposes of Title VII is the person with the ability to affect the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment. Smith, although he was Andonissamy’s “supervisor” in the sense that he directed his performance, was not a Title VII supervisor. There was no evidence that Smith was able "to hire, fire, promote, demote, discipline or transfer" Andonissamy. In order to hold HP liable for the acts of Smith as co-worker, Andonissamy had to establish that he complained or that the discrimination was so pervasive that HP’s knowledge could be inferred. Although Andonissamy did complain to Smith’s supervisor, he did not specifically complain about national origin discrimination. The Court agreed with the district court that Andonissamy therefore did not make out a Title VII claim. With respect to his companion § 1981 claim, the Court stated that a plaintiff can proceed under the direct or indirect method. The direct method requires evidence that an adverse employment action was based on the plaintiff's national origin. The Court found no such evidence in the record. Under the indirect method, a plaintiff must establish, among other elements, that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate performance expectations. The Court noted that the record contained numerous references to Andonissamy’s performance problems. The Court concluded that Andonissamy was therefore unable to establish a § 1981 claim under either method.

Andonissamy’s retaliation claim could also be established under the direct or indirect method. The indirect method for retaliation, like discrimination, contains an element that Andonissamy was meeting HP’s performance obligations. The Court rejected Andonissamy’s indirect method for establishing his retaliation claim for the same reason it rejected it for his discrimination claim. Under the direct method, Andonissamy had to establish that: a) he engaged in statutorily protected activity, b) his employer took an adverse employment action, and c) there was a causal connection between the two. The Court held that his complaints to HP did not include complaints of national origin discrimination. He was thus unable to establish the statutorily protected activity element. The Court concluded that he failed to establish a retaliation claim under either method. With respect to the FMLA count, the Court noted that Andonissamy never asked for any leave and did not exhibit any dramatic changes in behavior that would have put HP on notice of a need for leave. The Court agreed with the district court that Andonissamy failed to meet his burden under the FMLA.

Finally, the Court addressed Andonissamy’s assault claim against Smith. The assault claim was added to the case after the statute of limitations on the claim had expired. Andonissamy argued that the claim related back to the original claim and was thus permissible under FRCP 15(c). The Court affirmed the dismissal, stating that a claim against a new defendant relates back only when there is a case of mistaken identity. Since Smith supervised Andonissamy for years, that cannot be the case here.

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

SYCAMORE INDUSTRIAL PARK ASSOC. v. ERICSSON  (October 20, 2008)

Ericsson used to manufacture wiring and cable at its 28-acre, nine-building facility in Sycamore, Illinois. The buildings were heated by two large steam boilers and a network of piping. Most of the system is insulated. In January of 1983, Ericsson ceased its operations and decided to sell the property. Michael Kreiger, Ericsson’s property manager at the site, decided to buy the property and operate it as an industrial park. Between December of 1984 and the spring of 1985, Ericsson installed natural gas heaters throughout the property and discontinued the use of the steam boiler system. Meanwhile, Kreiger agreed to buy the building and formed Sycamore Industrial Park Associates (“Sycamore”) to hold title to the property after the purchase. The sale closed in May of 1985 and the property was immediately assigned to Sycamore. Sycamore discovered asbestos in the insulation of the boilers and associated piping. Sycamore brought an action against Ericsson based on CERCLA and RCRA to compel it to remove the asbestos. The court granted summary judgment for Ericsson, holding that the abandonment of the insulation in place was neither a CERCLA “disposal” nor a RCRA “handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal.” Sycamore appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed the CERCLA claim. To prevail, Sycamore had to show that Ericsson owned the facility at the time it “discharged, deposited, injected, dumped, spilled, or leaked” a solid or hazardous waste. The Court referred to its prior decision in G.J. Leasing for the proposition that asbestos abandoned in place in a structure does not create CERCLA liability, even when the structure is sold. CERCLA “disposal” requires a threat that the asbestos will be emitted or discharged into air or water. Here, all of the asbestos is enclosed and not a threat to enter the environment. The Court found no CERCLA liability and proceeded to address the RCRA count. To prevail on its RCRA count, the Court stated that Sycamore had to show that Ericsson “handled, stored, treated, transported, or disposed of” solid or hazardous waste. Because RCRA and CERCLA use the same definition of disposal, the Court adopted its analysis of the CERCLA claim to conclude that there was no RCRA disposal either. The district court properly entered judgment for Ericsson on the both counts. 

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