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

EGAN v. FREEDOM BANK (October 6, 2011)

Freedom Bank president Greg Dempsey hired Belinda Egan as a vice president in July 2007. According to her complaint, Egan met with Don Burton, a bank director, at his request several times over the next few months. At one of those meetings in September, Burton told Egan that he thought she should be the next bank president and that the directors had the power to fire anyone on the management team. He then made a sexual advance. Egan left but later discussed the conversation with Dempsey and Human Resources. Burton resigned shortly thereafter. The bank hired Dave Barajas to replace Greg Dempsey as president. According to Dempsey, Barajas told him that he had heard that Egan had done something for which she should have been fired. Barajas took over in December and hired four new employees over the next several months. Then, in February of 2008, Barajas told Egan that he had eliminated her position. Egan brought suit for retaliation, hostile work environment, and gender discrimination. Judge Reinhard (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the Bank. Egan appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Williams, and Hamilton reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed the retaliation claim, which Egan prosecuted under the direct method of proof. The parties agreed that she engaged in statutorily protected activity and suffered an adverse action. The only issue was whether she introduced sufficient evidence of a causal connection between her report of Burton's sexual advances and her termination. Although the Court found the Bank's explanation plausible, it concluded that it was not the only plausible explanation. Several things supported Egan's contention: Barajas' remark to Dempsey, the fact that Egan’s was the only position eliminated while four other positions were filled, and the fact that there were no complaints about her performance. Since a reasonable jury could conclude that the Bank fired her in retaliation for her complaint, the summary judgment was reversed. The Court affirmed summary judgment on both the hostile work environment (a single sexual overture does not establish hostile work environment)and gender discrimination claims (Egan failed to develop this claim below). Finally, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over a magistrate judge's sanctions order that Egan challenges. The magistrate judge has only the power to recommend a sanction (since there was no consent to proceed before the magistrate judge). Since the district court judge never addressed the recommended sanction, it is not reviewable on appeal.

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

CEDAR FARM v. LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (September 29, 2011)

Cedar Farm owns almost 2500 acres of property bordering the Ohio River in southern Indiana. The property is unusual. It contains, among other things, an antebellum mansion listed on the National Register of Historic Places and a habitat for a number of rare and endangered species. Almost 90% of the property is encumbered by an oil and gas lease with Louisville Gas and Electric Company. Under the express terms of the Lease, it terminates if: a) Louisville stops using it for gas production or storage, b) Louisville surrenders it (for $1.00), or c) Louisville fails to make required payments after a demand and 30 days to cure. The Lease also requires Louisville to pay for any damages it causes the property. Cedar Farm brought suit against Louisville, alleging that Louisville removed trees unnecessarily, installed unsightly pump jacks, and dumped construction debris, among other things. Although its original complaint sought both damages and ejectment, Cedar Farm ultimately dismissed its damages count with prejudice and proceeded solely on its ejectment claim. Judge Hamilton (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to Louisville, concluding that the only remedy in the Lease for Louisville's alleged conduct is damages. Cedar Farm appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Wood and Williams affirmed. Under Indiana law, a lessee under an oil and gas lease acquires a property interest once it begins production. After that point, courts are reluctant to terminate leases if the lessor can be adequately compensated by damages. Cedar Farm contends that this is such a case, given the property's historical and environmental significance and Louisville's egregious treatment of the land. The Court conceded that such could be the case but concluded that Cedar Farm could not simply rely on its allegations at summary judgment stage. Since there is no evidence in the record supporting the complaint's allegations, and no claim that Cedar Farm was prevented from presenting such evidence, summary judgment for Louisville was appropriate. The Court also declined Cedar Farm's request for certification to the Indiana Supreme Court.

• 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

SEREDNYJ v. BEVERLY HEALTHCARE (August 26, 2011)

Beverly Healthcare hired Victoria Seredynj as activity director at its Golden Living nursing home in Valparaiso, Indiana in 2006. Included within Seredynj's duties were several that were physically strenuous. Other employees frequently helped Seredynj with those duties. Seredynj learned that she was pregnant in January of 2007. She informed her supervisor and continued with her normal tasks. After a few months, however, she developed complications. Her doctor told her not to engage in strenuous activities. Under Beverly's modified work policy, Seredynj was not entitled to any restricted or limited duty. She was therefore told that she would not be allowed to return to work until she was released to full duty. Beverly terminated Seredynj's employment in March. Her attorney soon thereafter requested an Americans with Disabilities Act or Pregnancy Discrimination Act accommodation. Beverly declined. Seredynj filed suit against Beverly alleging gender discrimination under Title VII, pregnancy discrimination under the PDA, disability discrimination under the ADA, and retaliation. Judge Miller (N.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to Beverly. Seredynj appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judge Bauer and District Judge Young affirmed. The Court first addressed the PDA and Title VII claims. The legal analysis is the same for both. Seredynj proceeded under both the direct and indirect methods of proof. The Court rejected Seredynj's argument that Beverly's modified work policy, which only accommodates ADA-disabled employees, was evidence of discrimination. The PDA only requires that employers treat pregnant employees the same as non-pregnant employees. Beverly’s work policy does just that and is not direct evidence of discrimination. The Court also rejected her argument that Beverly's refusal to accommodate her, given that other employees frequently assisted her with strenuous tasks before her pregnancy, was direct evidence of discrimination,. The Court pointed out that voluntary assistance is materially different than a formal accommodation. The Court concluded that she failed under the direct method. Under the indirect method, Seredynj had the burden to show that a similarly situated non-pregnant employee was treated more favorably. None of the individuals suggested by Seredynj, however, were similarly situated. Her indirect claim must fail. Summary judgment was properly granted on the gender and pregnancy discrimination claims. The court turned to the ADA. It's first inquiry was whether she was disabled under the Act, an issue of first impression in federal appellate courts. Under the Act, a disability is either: a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity, b) a record of such an impairment, or c) being regarded as having such an impairment. The Court addressed each possibility. First, although pregnancy is not an impairment, the Court concluded that a pregnancy with the complications experienced by Seredynj may be an impairment. The Court did not definitively resolve that issue, given its further treatment of the claim. The impairment at issue must substantially limit a major life activity. Generally short-term, temporary conditions do not meet the definition. Here, Seredynj’s condition did not even last as long as her pregnancy and did not affect her ability to conceive again. The Court therefore concluded that Seredynj was not disabled under the first possibility. For the same reasons, Seredynj was not disabled under the record of disability possibility. Finally, the Court stated that the record did not support any belief on Beverly’s part that Seredynj had such an impairment. Summary judgment in Beverly's favor on the ADA claim was therefore appropriate. The Court turned to the retaliation claim, which consisted of Seredynj's claim that Beverly looked for an opportunity to fire her after receiving her attorney’s letter seeking an accommodation. To prevail, Seredynj must prove that she suffered an adverse employment action. Since Beverly terminated her employment before it even received the attorneys letter, she cannot possibly do that -- summary judgment was proper.

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

ORTIZ v. WEBSTER (August 24, 2011)

Shortly after Arboleda Ortiz was incarcerated in the Terre Haute federal prison, an ophthalmologist diagnosed him with a pterygium, a thin film covering the eye, and recommended surgery. The prison denied the request. Someone wrote on the request "NO TOWN TRIPS." Over the next few years, two other doctors concurred with the surgery recommendation while a fourth doctor concluded that the condition was not serious enough for surgery. Dr. Thomas Webster, the prison medical director, reviewed Ortiz’ file and concluded that surgery was not medically necessary, but that it might be required within two years after further evaluation. Ortiz filed suit in 2005 under Bivens, alleging that Dr. Webster was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Ortiz eventually got the surgery while his lawsuit progressed. The district court originally granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, identifying several fact disputes: a) the seriousness of Ortiz’ condition, given the several surgery recommendations, b) Dr. Webster's motivation, given that his stated reason for denying surgery was contrary to the medical record, and c) whether the "NO TOWN TRIP" reflected a prison policy against off-site trips for death row inmates. On remand, the author of the "NO TOWN TRIP" explained it away and Dr. Webster presented evidence that there was no prison policy against off-site medical treatment. Dr. Webster also presented expert testimony that his treatment was within the standard of care because surgical removal of the film is not necessary until there is corneal distortion. Judge McKinney (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to Dr. Webster. Ortiz appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Manion, and Kanne (dissenting) vacated and remanded. In order to prevail on summary judgment, Ortiz had to show both that his condition was objectively serious and that Dr. Webster knowingly disregarded it. The Court had no difficulty concluding that, at a minimum, there was a fact dispute as to whether the condition was objectively serious. The Court also concluded that Ortiz presented sufficient evidence to get to a jury on the deliberate indifference element. First, construing the evidence in Ortiz' favor, the conditions identified by the expert as requiring surgery actually existed when Dr. Webster refused surgery. Second, even when Dr. Webster refused surgery, he indicated the need for further evaluation and the possibility of the need for surgery within two years. But no further evaluation took place within the next two years. A jury could conclude that Dr. Webster's inaction unreasonably delayed the necessary surgery. Finally, the Court noted that the expert opinion that surgery was not necessary did not resolve the fact dispute -- it merely added one more opinion on the no-surgery side of the debate.

Judge Kanne dissented, taking issue with the majority’s treatment of the deliberate indifference prong. He pointed out that deliberate indifference in a medical context is especially hard to prove. A difference of opinion about a condition’s proper treatment is not enough. Judge Kanne saw nothing either in Dr. Webster's initial review of the file or his later treatment, even taking the facts in a light most favorable to Ortiz, that rose to the level of deliberate indifference.

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

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM v. PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE (August 5, 2011)

Phoenix International Software and the University of Wisconsin each registered the mark CONDOR with the Patent and Trademark Office. Phoenix has used the mark since 1978 and registered it in 1997. Wisconsin registered its mark in 2001. Each mark refers to computer software, although the Phoenix system is designed principally for mainframe systems and the Wisconsin system is designed principally for individual computers. Phoenix petitioned theTrademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel Wisconsin's mark on the ground that it creates confusion. The Board granted the petition and canceled the mark. Wisconsin challenged the Board's decision by filing an action in federal district court. Phoenix counterclaimed for trademark infringement and false designation of origin. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) reversed the Board’s determination on Wisconsin's motion for summary judgment and also dismissed Phoenix's counterclaims on sovereign immunity grounds. Phoenix appealed.The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded that part of the district court's judgment granting summary judgment on the trademark dispute but affirmed the district court (with Judge Wood dissenting) with respect to its finding that the university was entitled to sovereign immunity. Phoenix petitioned for rehearing.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Wood, and Tinder granted the petition for rehearing limited to the sovereign immunity question, reaffirmed its earlier ruling reversing summary judgment, and also reversed the district court on its finding of sovereign immunity. Although the rehearing was limited to the sovereign immunity issue, the Court did readdress the summary judgment issue. It concluded, as it had done earlier, that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to the Board of Regents, particularly in light of the TTAB finding and the standard of review. The central question is whether customers are likely to be confused. The TTAB applied the correct standard and looked at the right factors. The district court was wrong when it criticized the TTAB be for considering the actual nature of the products and it was also wrong when it focused so heavily on the registration materials themselves. The TTAB gave three reasons for canceling Wisconsin's mark: they were identical, they performed similar functions, and a sophisticated purchaser would likely believe that there was some relationship between them. Although Wisconsin put on additional evidence challenging these conclusions, it was not sufficient to eliminate any fact issue. The Court turned to sovereign immunity. Although the Eleventh Amendment confers immunity upon a state, it is not absolute. First, Congress can authorize suits against states. Although Phoenix's counterclaims did rely on statutes in which Congress subjected states to liability, the Court doubted that either would survive a constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court has already struck down provisions for state liability in the false advertising and patent infringement areas. Second, a state may voluntarily waive sovereign immunity by its litigation conduct. In Lapides, the Supreme Court held that Georgia waived its sovereign immunity when it removed to federal court a complaint that had been filed in state court. The Supreme Court stated that it would be "unfair" to allow a state to both invoke federal jurisdiction and then to assert sovereign immunity to deny that very jurisdiction. The Court found that the majority of its sister courts had read Lapides to state a general rule, as opposed to being limited to its facts. The Court also concluded that the general rule need not be limited to instances of removal. Here, Wisconsin did not raise sovereign immunity during the administrative proceedings and chose to challenge the findings of those proceedings by filing a separate federal lawsuit. The Court explored the four alternative paths that Wisconsin could have taken that would not have resulted in a waiver -- do nothing after the TTAB finding, refuse to participate at all in the administrative proceedings, file suit in state court, and appeal the administrative findings to the Federal Circuit. One principle that stands out in Lapides is that a state should not be able to advance its litigation position by choosing a federal forum and then asserting sovereign immunity. The Court identified at least three advantages that inured to Wisconsin's benefit because of its choice of the federal forum. The Court then had to resolve whether Wisconsin's waiver extended far enough to permit Phoenix’s federal counterclaims. Relying on guidance from the Supreme Court and its sister circuits, the Court concluded that the waiver was broad enough to encompass compulsory counterclaims. Under Rule 13(a), a compulsory counterclaim is one that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence. The Court had no difficulty, applying the "logical relationship" test, to conclude that the Phoenix counterclaims arose out of the same occurrence as Wisconsin's challenge. Phoenix, therefore may pursue its counterclaims on remand.

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

TROVARE CAPITAL GROUP v. SIMKINS INDUSTRIES (July 20, 2011)

In late 2006, Leon Simkins decided to sell the family owned folding carton business and its affiliates, in which he was a controlling shareholder. He engaged Mesirow Financial to act as broker. Trovare Capital Group was interested and contacted Mesirow. In late May of 2007, Simkins and Trovare entered into a letter of intent ("LOI"). The agreement was generally nonbinding but did give Trovare a 90-day exclusivity period and obligated Simkins to pay a $200,000 fee if it breached the exclusivity period or gave Trovare written notice of a unilateral termination of the negotiations. The LOI included a termination date of September 30, 2007, after which neither party any obligations. Shortly afterward, the negotiations went south. Trovare's environmental consultant concluded that all real properties involved needed further environmental testing. Simkins and his family became more and more concerned about their own liabilities that would arise from a sale. At one point, Simkins told his own negotiating team that he did not want to go through with the deal. Although the parties continued to communicate, both Mesirow and Trovare began doubting the sellers’ sincerity. Trovare even demanded the breakup fee as early as August. After the communications stopped, Trovare brought suit against Simkins for the $200,000 fee. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the undisputed facts established that they did not terminate the negotiations and that they negotiated in good faith. Trovare appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Kanne and Evans and District Judge Clevert reversed and remanded. The Court quickly dispensed with Trovare's argument that it was entitled to the contractual $200,000 fee. The LOI imposed that obligation on the sellers only if they breached the exclusivity period or gave written notice of the termination of negotiations. Neither occurred here. Trovare also alleged, however, a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Court noted that Trovare could prevail on that claim if it proved that the sellers had decided to terminate negotiations but simply refused to provide a written notice. The Court disagreed with the district court that the undisputed record showed continued good faith negotiations beyond the termination date. The Court concluded that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the continued communications were not actually negotiations. The Court pointed to several parts of the record, including: a) Simkins’ statement that he “definitely" did not want to consummate the deal, b) Simkins later willingness to negotiate only if Trovare agreed to five demands, and c) the sellers’ misrepresentations that the second phase environmental inspections had already begun. Summary judgment for the defendants was error.

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

HARVEY v. TOWN OF MERRILLVILLE (July 11, 2011)

The mostly African-American residents of a Merrillville, Indiana subdivision were unhappy with their retention pond. It frequently flooded and they thought it attracted mosquitoes. When town officials considered a subdivision expansion, the residents became even more concerned. They attempted to express those concerns to town officials. They claim that the officials ignored them, subjected them to racial slurs, and were generally less responsive than they were to the white residents of a different subdivision. Several of the residents filed suit pursuant to § 1983 alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. They also brought many state law claims. They named as defendants the Town, the town engineer, and a large number of other town employees. In a December 2, 2010 order, Judge Van Bokkelen (N.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants (but failed to mention the engineer) on the ground that plaintiffs failed to identify a similarly situated class. He also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and "remanded" the case to state court. After the engineer sought clarification, the court issued an order the following day pursuant to Rule 60(a) granting summary judgment to the engineer. A few months later, the district court entered Rule 58 judgment as to all defendants. Plaintiffs appealed the December 2 order, but mentioned all defendants. The plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal with respect to the December 3 order or the later judgment.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Kanne, and Tinder affirmed as modified. The Court first rejected the engineer's arguments that: a) plaintiffs failed to effectively appeal summary judgment in his favor because they did not appeal from the December 3 order or the later judgment, and b) plaintiffs waived their argument as to him by not developing it adequately. With respect to the former, the Court noted that failed attempts to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3  are generally not fatal if the appellee is not harmed. Here, the appellant's identified the engineer by name and even included a copy of the judgment in their brief, which also named him. Their technical noncompliance does not prevent the Court from having jurisdiction. With respect to the latter, the Court acknowledged many deficiencies in the briefing but concluded that plaintiffs addressed the engineer enough to avoid waiver. On the merits, the Court agreed that plaintiffs failed to make out an equal protection claim sufficient to get past summary judgment. To do that, the plaintiffs had to present evidence that they were in a protected class, that they were similarly situated to others in an unprotected class, and that they were treated differently. They did present some evidence of similarities with the residents of another subdivision but they failed to carry the day. There was more evidence of substantial differences between the groups, including subdivision zoning differences and the fact that the other subdivision did not even have a retention pond. In addition, plaintiffs failed to present evidence, other than their pleadings, that the other residents even belonged to an unprotected class. And finally, the record seems to show that the other residents group was actually treated less favorably than the plaintiffs. The district court did err, however, in remanding the case to state court. The case did not originate in state court and cannot be remanded there. The district court should have dismissed without prejudice.

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

FLOMO v. FIRESTONE NATURAL RUBBER CO. LLC (July 11, 2011)

A subsidiary of the Firestone Natural Rubber Company operates a large rubber plantation in Liberia. The company employs many local laborers. The jobs pay well but are sometimes hazardous. Because of the relatively high pay and strict daily production quotas, some of the employees hire their own helpers. Some of the employees even bring their own children. A number of those children brought suit against Firestone under the Alien Tort Statute. Judge Magnus-Stinson (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to Firestone. The plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Posner, and Manion affirmed. The Alien Tort Statute allows an alien to bring a claim in the United States federal courts for a tort "committed in violation of the law of nations." The two issues presented by the appeal are whether a corporate entity, rather than a natural person, can be liable under the statute and, if so, whether the plaintiffs have presented enough evidence of such a violation to get past summary judgment. The law of nations, or customary international law, derives from the customs and usages of civilized countries. When the statute was first enacted in 1789, it applied principally to piracy, ambassador mistreatment, and violation of safe conduct. But the statute was drafted and enacted to include additional international laws, as they developed. With respect to corporate liability, the Supreme Court has not spoken and most courts of appeals have assumed or held that they can be liable. The Second Circuit concluded that a corporation could not be liable under the Alien Tort Statute. It reasoned that corporate liability could not be customary international law since corporations have never been prosecuted under international law. The Court criticized the Second Circuit precedent because of its incorrect factual premise. It noted that German corporations that aided the Nazi effort were dissolved after World War II. The Court then considered whether there was a compelling reason for the few corporate prosecutions -- and found none. The Court ultimately distinguished between the substance of international law and its enforcement. The substantive obligations are imposed by international law but each nation must decide how to enforce those obligations. In the United States, it is common for corporations to be liable for the torts of its employees. That same principle applies to the United States enforcement of substantive violations of customary international law. The Court declined to define the outer reaches of corporate liability since it was not necessary for its decision. Having found potential corporate liability, the Court turned to the record to determine if there were genuine issues of material fact. Three international conventions helped the court to define customary international law in the case of child labor. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that a child need not perform work that is hazardous, that interferes with his education, or is harmful to his health or development. The Court found that statement much too vague to create an international legal norm. TheInternational Labour Organization Minimum Age Convention states that children under 14 should only do "light work." The Court also found that to be too vague. Finally, the International Labour Organization Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention states that the worst forms of child labor is work that is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of those children. Although a corresponding recommendation provided more detail to that statement, the Court still could not discern an agreed norm of conduct. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to present concrete evidence of how different nations would impose liability for child labor. The Court also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that the specific conditions at the Firestone plantation were actionable. The record does not show how many children work on the plantations, how much work they do, how hard the work is, and how their lives compare to local children who do not live on the plantation. The Court surmised that the child of a plantation worker, even one who works himself, may be better off than the child of a non-plantation worker.

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

ROBERTHENRY DAVIS, SR. v. TIME WARNER CABLE OF SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN (July 5, 2011)

Time Warner Cable of Southeastern Wisconsin employs two sales teams. The inside team takes calls from business subscribers and is paid mostly through commissions. The outside team is responsible for landing new customer accounts and is paid principally by salary. In the early 2000s, the inside team was comprised of mostly African Americans and the outside team was comprised of mostly whites. Roberthenry Davis was an African-American member of the inside team. Two women, one African-American and one white, joined the inside team in 2005. The white saleswoman's lack of success created friction on the team and even led to rumors outside the team. The team's manager, a white male, criticized the African-Americans on the team for not being more cohesive. The African-Americans objected to that treatment and Davis complained. In late 2006, Davis erroneously treated a simple service request as a commissionable transaction, even though two of his colleagues disagreed. Time Warner ultimately reversed Davis' treatment of the request and concluded that he had violated employee guidelines. Time Warner fired Davis. After further investigation, however, a human resources manager recommended that the company reinstate Davis with back pay, but with a warning and an improvement plan. Although there was disagreement within the company, Davis was soon reinstated. Davis was unhappy about the way he was treated when he returned and he was also unhappy with a new compensation scheme that reduced commission opportunities for the inside team. Davis filed suit, alleging that Time Warner discriminated against him and retaliated against him when it fired him and when it changed the compensation scheme. Judge Adelman (E.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to Time Warner on the ground that race was not a motivating factor in the company's actions. Davis appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Tinder affirmed. The Court addressed each claim (discriminatory firing, retaliatory firing, discriminatory compensation, and retaliatory compensation) separately. With respect to discriminatory firing, the Court agreed with the district court that Davis failed to provide evidence of a causal connection between Time Warner’s conduct and his termination. The Court noted that there was some evidence of his manager's insensitivity, or even bigotry, but no evidence that it was a motivating factor. And there was evidence that Time Warner strictly enforced its guidelines and had fired many employees, both white and African-American, for violations similar to Davis’. Davis' retaliatory firing claim was based on his complaints to his manager about what he perceived as unfair treatment. Again, the Court noted the lack of evidence that it was his complains that led it to his termination. Indeed, the evidence was that the company regularly terminated employees for guidelines violations. Davis classified his discriminatory compensation claim as a disparate treatment claim. In order to succeed on that claim, he had to produce evidence that Time Warner reduced his compensation on account of his race. Here, the revised compensation plan applied to all employees of whatever race on the inside team. That fact, coupled with the fact that a member of the inside team could transfer to the outside team, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the decision was not race-based. Finally, the Court reached the same conclusion with respect to Davis' retaliatory compensation claim. There was no evidence to link his complaints to his manager with the changes in the compensation plan.

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

JOHNSON v. HIX WRECKER SERVICE (July 1, 2011)

Bobby Johnson worked twelve-hour shifts as a tow truck driver for Hix Wrecker Service in 2006. He later sued the company, claiming that he had not been paid for overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hix Wrecker claimed that Johnson was not subject to the FLSA but, rather, was exempt under its motor carrier exemption. Judge Lawrence (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to Hix. Johnson appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook, Circuit Judge Williams, and District Judge Pallmeyer reversed and remanded. The Court recognized that not all employees of a motor carrier are governed by the FLSA. If the employee engages only in intrastate commerce, the FLSA governs. If the employee is wholly engaged in interstate commerce, the employee is exempt from the FLSA and comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Transportation. Many motor carriers and their employees engage in both in intrastate and interstate commerce -- but they cannot be subject to both statutory schemes. Under a Department of Transportation interpretation, an employee is exempt from the FLSA if the employer presents "concrete evidence" that the employee is "engaged in interstate commerce within a reasonable period of time" before the time period in question. A driver who has not engaged in interstate commerce can still be exempt if the carrier has been engaged in interstate commerce and the employee could be expected to engage in the commerce. The interpretation also adopted four months as a "reasonable period of time." In support of its motion for summary judgment, Hix did not assert that Johnson actually engaged in interstate commerce. Instead, it submitted an affidavit that asserted that Hix "routinely" provides interstate services and that Johnson could have been assigned an interstate wrecker run at any time during his employment. The Court concluded that Hicks did not carry its burden of proving the exemption. The affidavit's use of the term "routinely" was too vague to meet the four-months reasonable time threshold. In the Court's view, "routinely" could mean, for example, once every six months or once a year.

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

SMEIGH v. JOHNS MANVILLE, INC. (June 29, 2011)

For years, Aaron Smeigh was a model employee at Johns Manville. He had a spotless record. That changed in September of 2008. It was then that Smeigh severed his finger at work. While awaiting the arrival of an ambulance, Smeigh told his supervisor that he did not take drugs but that he might not be able to pass a drug test. He said it was because he had recently been in a room where marijuana had been smoked. The supervisor told the plant manager that Smeigh might not pass a drug test. In fact, Smeigh took a drug test at the hospital and it came back negative. The company considered whether Smeigh's statement violated Johns Manville's substance abuse policy. A human resources manager decided that it was. The company decided to allow Smeigh to keep his job if he entered into a Stipulation of Understanding. The stipulation would require him to meet with a counselor, submit to random drug and alcohol tests, and possibly pay for the tests. Smeigh refused to sign the agreement and the company fired him. After the union filed a grievance, the company offered to hire him back if he passed a drug test and agreed to be subject to random drug tests over two years. Again, Smeigh refused. A union secretary cleaned out his locker to separate company property from personal property. Someone apparently stole some of his personal property before it was returned to him. Smeigh brought suit for unlawful discharge in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim and for civil conversion under state law. Judge Pratt (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the company. Smeigh appeals

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Evans, and Tinder affirmed. Although an employee can recover damages if he has been terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim, he must present evidence that his termination was solely in retaliation for filing such a claim. Here, Smeigh relies on indirect evidence of causation. In fact, he relies almost exclusively on timing. The Court noted the timing is rarely sufficient, by itself, to create a question of fact. In addition, here there is an intervening event -- his refusal to sign the stipulation. The Court noted that the record shows that the company actually submitted the workers’ compensation claim on his behalf, wanted him to sign the stipulation and retain his job, and was willing to reinstate him a few months later. No reasonable jury could find in his favor. The Court also affirmed on the conversion count. In order to prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff must prove criminal intent. Here, company policy required a company employee to clear out a terminated employee's locker, separate company property from personal property, and return the personal property. The record shows that the employee's control over Smeigh's property was authorized or, at least, she had a reasonable belief that it was. In addition, the only defendant is the company and there is no evidence in the record that the company knew that the employee continued to possess Smeigh's property and Smeigh did not argue vicarious liability. The Court chastised Smeigh for even including the conversion count in the appeal without even explaining his rationale for disagreeing with the district court's analysis. Notwithstanding its criticism, the Court declined to impose sanctions.

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

COSTELLO v. GRUNDEN (June 28, 2011)

Several senior Comdisco, Inc. employees participated in the company's shared investment plan (SIP) program. Under the program: a) participants purchased Comdisco stock, b) the purchase was funded exclusively by personal loans, c) the participants executed promissory notes in their personal capacities, d) Comdisco guaranteed the loans, e) the lender remitted the loan proceeds directly to Comdisco, f) Comdisco held the shares, g) there were several restrictions on the ability to sell the stock, and h) participants delivered a blank stock power to Comdisco. Although some SIP participants later sold their stock and made healthy profits, others were still holding the stock when Comdisco went into bankruptcy. As part of the settlement on the guarantee, the lender assigned its rights under the notes to the Comdisco Litigation Trustee. The Trustee brought suit against the participants and moved for summary judgment against two of them. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) granted the Trustee's motion for summary judgment, rejecting the defendants' defenses. The court then granted the Trustee's motion for summary judgment against the remaining defendants on the bases of his earlier ruling and his rejection of the additional defense. Defendants appeal. The Seventh Circuit issued an opinion on October 18, 2010. On June 16, 2011 the Court granted a petition for panel rehearing and vacated the October opinion and judgment.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner, and Tinder vacated the summary judgments in favor of the Trustee and remanded for further proceedings. The defendants raised several arguments on appeal. First, the defendants argued that the district court erred in not allowing them to assert violations of Regulations G and U as affirmative defenses. The Court agreed. It concluded that a private right of action under either § 7(d) or § 29(b) is not a prerequisite to asserting a violation of Regulation G or U as an affirmative defense. It also concluded that the "zone of interests" prudential standing requirement does not apply when a party uses a violation of the statute or regulations defensively. Second, the defendants argued that the district court erred in concluding that Comdisco and the lender did not violate the regulations. Again, the Court agreed. With respect to Comdisco, the Court concluded that the Trustee did not raise it in his summary judgment papers. With respect to the lender, the Court identified genuine issues of fact with respect to the good faith non-reliance exception. Third, the defendants challenged the summary judgment ruling on the § 10(b) illegality defense. The Trustee originally only argued that the defendants could not prove falsity. In his reply brief, he then argued that defendants had to establish all elements of the defense. The Court concluded that the defendants did not have to present their evidence on the other elements of the defense and that the district court erred in granting summary based on lack of scienter. The Court also held that the district court erred in applying a heightened "strong inference" of scienter requirement. Fourth, the defendants argued that the notes are unenforceable due to violations of § 17(a) of the Securities Act. Because the Trustee defended the district court's ruling only on lack of scienter, the Court vacated the judgment for the same reasons it vacated with respect to the illegality defense. Fifth, the defendants challenged the district court's extension of its ruling with respect to the first two defendants to the other defendants. The district court's ruling with respect to the first two defendants was that the misrepresentations were expressions of legal opinion and therefore could not support a fraud claim. But the later defendants identified an exception to that general rule. The district court erred in that it never considered the argument. Finally, the defendants argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their excuse-of-nonperformance defense. Based on its earlier rulings that summary judgment on the counts alleging statutory and regulatory violations was improper, the Court also concluded that summary judgment on the excuse-of-nonperformance defense was improper.

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

MOORE v. VITAL PRODUCTS (May 25, 2011)

Raymond Moore delivered and installed medical equipment for Vital Products. He claims that other Vital employees, including his supervisor, exposed him to sexual paraphernalia and pictures and made unwelcome sexual remarks. Vital suspended Moore for poor performance in January of 2005. On February 16, shortly after his return from the suspension, Moore injured his back. He has not worked at Vital since. Vital sent a COBRA notice to Moore on February 21. The contents of the letter suggested that Moore was no longer employed at Vital. Moore filed an EEOC charge on December 7, 2005. The charge included allegations of hostile work environment based on race and gender but did not include allegations of unlawful discharge. Moore brought suit pursuant to Title VII, alleging a hostile work environment, discriminatory discharge, and retaliatory discharge. He also alleged retaliatory discharge under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. Magistrate Judge Schenkier (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Vital but denied its request for sanctions. Moore appeals -- Vital cross-appeals the denial of sanctions and seeks sanctions on appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Wood affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Court first affirmed the dismissal of the hostile work environment claim. Since Moore filed his EEOC charge on December 7, he must present evidence of a hostile work environment within the 300-day window, or after February 10. He failed to present any evidence of hostile work environment between February 10 and February 16, his last day on the job. The Court next affirmed the dismissal of his Title VII discriminatory discharge claim. A Title VII plaintiff can only bring claims that were included in his EEOC charge, or at least reasonably related to the contents of the charge. Moore did not include in his EEOC charge any allegations relating to his discharge. In fact, he stated in his charge that he was on medical leave, not discharged. The Court reversed, however, summary judgment on the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act claim. It is not clear whether Moore: a) is an employee on leave, b) abandoned his job in February 2005, or c) was discharged. The Court found genuine issues of fact with respect to Moore's status and, if he was discharged, whether the discharge was motivated by his intention to file a workers' compensation claim. Finally, the Court affirmed the district court's sanctions ruling and declined to impose its own.

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

MILLER v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (May 10, 2011)

The Illinois Department of Transportation hired Darrell Miller in 2002 as part of a bridge crew. The crew, which consisted of five employees, was responsible for a wide variety of tasks. Many of those tasks were performed at ground level, while some were performed at various heights above the ground or water. Miller had some fear of heights and there were a few jobs that he could not perform. For years, the crew worked as a team. IDOT allowed his other crew members to fill in for him on those few occasions when he could not do his assigned task. Other team members also had tasks they could not perform for various reasons and IDOT accommodated those limitations as well. In 2006, Miller was asked to do a task that he considered unsafe. He performed the task but filed a grievance. Just a few weeks later, his crew leader assigned him to a task that resulted in a panic attack. IDOT put him on sick leave. Its examiner diagnosed him with acrophobia and declared him unfit to work on the bridge crew. IDOT began treating Miller as unable to work at any height in excess of 20 feet. Miller filed a grievance and also requested an accommodation identical to that which he had enjoyed in the past. His request was denied and he was ordered to return to work. When he encountered an IDOT personnel manager, he commented to a colleague that he "would like to knock her teeth out." Miller was told to go home and was later discharged for threatening violence against another employee. After an arbitration, he returned to work but without back pay or benefits. Miller filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He alleged discrimination arising from the refusal to provide accommodation and his termination. He also alleged retaliation. Judge Stiehl (S.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to IDOT on both counts. Miller appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Rovner, and Hamilton reversed and remanded. The ADA protects only those individuals with a disability. But disability is defined in the statute as not only having a significant impairment but also being regarded as having such an impairment. A substantial limitation on being able to work qualifies as such an impairment. Since Miller did not claim to be actually impaired, his challenge was to present evidence that IDOT regarded him as substantially limited in his ability to perform a wide range of jobs. The Court noted that the regulations require consideration of several factors, including the nature and severity of the impairment, its duration, and its longer-term impact. The Court concluded that Miller presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find that IDOT regarded him as limited in his ability to do a substantial number of jobs. Summary judgment on the discrimination claim was improper. On the reasonable accommodation claim, the Court also found issues of fact that should have gone to the jury. Although working at heights in extreme positions is an essential element of the crew's work, the Court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that it was not an essential element of any individual crew member's work. The Court cited the history of team accommodations in the record. A reasonable juror could also find that Miller's request for an accommodation was reasonable. Finally, on the retaliation claim, the Court found that Miller presented sufficient evidence going to IDOT’s honesty to get to a jury. The Court cited an example of a similar violent outburst that was not disciplined, the agency's general hostility towards accommodations, and the ambiguity of the threat itself.

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

CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS v. VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG (May 2, 2011)

The Village of Schaumburg, Illinois, owns the Schaumburg Renaissance Hotel. The Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters represents the hotel's housekeepers. On August 18, 2009, in the midst of stalled collective bargaining negotiations, the Union staged a demonstration. The local police allowed the demonstration to proceed after the Union agreed to follow a specified route and to control noise. When they attempted a repeat performance on August 31, the police turned them away. They filed suit on September 2 under § 1983 alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. A couple of months later, the Village refused the Union's request to distribute pamphlets at the hotel. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment -- but the Union focused its argument on the pamphlet incident rather than the demonstration incident. Judge Lindberg (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the Village, concluding that the Union forfeited its claims regarding the demonstration and never amended its complaint to address the pamphlet issue. The court denied the Union’s belated request to amend its complaint. The Union appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Posner and Wood and District Judge Adelman affirmed. When the Union filed its complaint in September, it complained only of the August event. The Union never amended its complaint but was abundantly clear in its summary judgment papers that it was abandoning the August claims. The district court was correct in granting summary judgment on the August claim – the only claim before it. Although the Union could have and did request an opportunity to amend, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that belated request.

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

RADENTZ v. MARION COUNTY (April 5, 2011)

Prior to 2005, forensic pathologists at Indiana University performed certain services, including autopsies, for the Marion County Coroner's office under a contract. The contract terms were very favorable to the County, in that the University subsidized much of the cost. The contract expired on the last day of 2004, the day before Kenneth Ackles, an African-American chiropractor, became the new Coroner. Notwithstanding the contract expiration, the University continued to provide services at no cost for a few months but it eventually terminated the contract. The Chief Deputy Corner reached out to two of the University's pathologists who had been providing the services, Stephen Radentz and Michele Catellier. Radentz and Catellier formed a limited liability company and entered into a five-year contract with the County to provide forensic pathology services. Under the contract, the pathologists could perform autopsies for other counties, but Marion County had to furnish the supplies for those autopsies. With six months notice, either party could terminate the contract without cause and the County could amend the contract to eliminate permission for other county autopsies. In late 2005, Ackles replaced his deputy with Alfarena Ballew, an African-American woman. Ballew terminated the contract with Radentz and Catellier. They brought suit pursuant to § 1983 against the County, Ackles, and Ballew, alleging that the contract termination was based on race discrimination in violation of the Constitution. Judge Lawrence (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Radentz and Catellier appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Rovner reversed and remanded. The Court noted that the district court concluded that plaintiffs had met their prima facie indirect method burden, and that determination is not challenged on appeal. What is at issue is whether the defendants' nondiscriminatory reason given for the contract termination was pretextual. In order to prevail, the plaintiffs must do more than show that the decision was unwise. They must show that it was not honestly believed. There was evidence that Ballew and the County were concerned about the contract costs. Ballew was particularly concerned about the costs the County incurred providing supplies for the other county autopsies. The County received no income from these autopsies. The Court noted that the contract allowed the County to withdraw that permission with six months notice. The County never explained why it gave six months notice to terminate the contract rather than giving the six months notice to withdraw the other county autopsy permission. Their failure to explain their decision casts some doubt on it. The Court noted other evidence that was consistent with a race based decision: the County was satisfied with plaintiffs’ work, the County hired an African-American woman to replace the plaintiffs, Ackles was on record discussing his desire for more African-Americans in the Coroner’s office, the racial demographics of the office were changing, and the new hire provided no economic benefit to the County. On that record, the Court concluded that a factfinder would not have to believe the County. The factual disputes concerning the termination decision preclude summary judgment.

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

OWENS v. HINSLEY (March 18, 2011)

While imprisoned in the Menard Correctional Center, James Owens became unhappy with prison conditions and with the prison's response to his complaints. So he started a hunger strike. He spent 21 days in his cell and four in the infirmary before he ate again. He lost 20 pounds but suffered no medical complications. Within weeks, he began a second hunger strike. This time, he spent 25 days in his cell and almost 3 weeks in the infirmary. He ate again only after the prison began force-feeding him. He lost 30 pounds on his second hunger strike but again suffered no medical complications. He submitted an informal grievance complaining that he should have been moved to the infirmary sooner. His counselor ignored the grievance. The following year, on two separate occasions, Owens was assaulted by cellmates, complained to guards, and was assaulted again before the guards did anything. Owens brought suit pursuant to § 1983. The complaint contained seven separate claims against 15 different defendants. Chief Judge Herndon (S.D. Ill.) dismissed five of the seven claims at screening and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the other two. Owens appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Wood affirmed. The Court first noted that the complaint violated the rules of civil procedure regarding joinder and should either have been severed into two separate actions or dismissed for improper joinder. However, since improper joinder is not jurisdictional, the Court addressed each claim's merits in turn. His claim that prison officials violated the Constitution when they ignored his grievances is frivolous -- prison grievance procedures are not required by the Constitution. His claim that his First Amendment right to demonstrate was violated when the prison force-fed him is frivolous -- there is no constitutional right to refuse life-saving medical treatment. His claim that the guards failed to protect him from cellmate assaults fails -- no reasonable juror could find that the guards deliberately ignored a substantial risk of serious harm. His claim that the prison was deliberately indifferent when it did not move him from his cell to the infirmary during his hunger strikes fails, although not for the reason relied upon by the district court. His allegation, in his verified response to summary judgment,  that he submitted an informal grievance is the equivalent of an affidavit. The court should have considered it. The claim still fails because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies when he did not follow up his informal grievance with a written grievance to a designated prison official. The district court dismissed the other three claims without prejudice because the allegations of misconduct were not linked to a particular defendant. Although an amended complaint may have corrected some of that problem, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend when Owens failed to comply with local procedure, failed to follow the court's instructions for refiling, and filed claims that had already been dismissed at screening.

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

HERNANDEZ v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (February 24, 2011)

Several Cook County Jail inmates escaped in February of 2006. Jail authorities immediately suspected that the escapees had inside help. One guard admitted his involvement. Six additional guards came under suspicion. Internal and criminal investigations were conducted. Several of the guards were suspended with pay. The guards also claimed they were treated harshly during the investigation and discouraged from contacting the union or an attorney. Ultimately, one guard was suspended for five days and two left the department. Administrative charges were dropped against the other three. The six guards brought suit against the Sheriff's office alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights, and included state law intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment claims. They claimed that the investigation was in retaliation for their safety complaints (the plaintiffs allegedly complained about security and overcrowding problems in the jails) and political views (the head of their unit was running for Sheriff against the incumbent sheriff's Chief of Staff). The defendants moved to dismiss the constitutional claims on qualified immunity grounds and the state law claims on statutory immunity grounds. The court never ruled on that motion. The defendants later moved for summary judgment, but only briefly argued qualified immunity and did not argue statutory immunity in their opening brief. Judge Guzman (N.D. Ill.) a) granted summary judgment on the merits on the retaliation claim based on safety complaints, b) denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim based on political views, c) denied the request for qualified immunity, concluding that defendants had waived it, and d) denied summary judgment with respect to the state law claims. Defendants appeal only the denial of qualified immunity on the constitutional claims.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum, and Wood reversed and remanded. The Court noted that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is ordinarily not appealable. It is, however, when the requested grounds for summary judgment is qualified immunity and when the denial involves only legal issues. Since a finding of waiver is a legal issue, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Court seemed to have little difficulty in concluding that the district court erred in finding waiver. Although an underdeveloped argument can amount to waiver, it does so only when it provides inadequate notice of the argument. Here, defendants have argued qualified immunity from the beginning of the case. They argued in their motion to dismiss, they argued unambiguously (albeit briefly) in their opening summary judgment brief in a section captioned "Qualified Immunity," and they argued it at length in their reply brief. Arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs are generally considered waived, but arguments more fully developed in reply briefs do not necessarily suffer the same fate. The plain fact is that plaintiffs were on notice of the argument and defendants treatment of it did not constitute a waiver. Finding no waiver, the Court addressed the merits of the argument. The familiar test has two prongs -- whether the defendants violated a constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time. When the constitutional violation concerns a public employee's First Amendment rights, a court first must determine whether the speech involves a matter of public concern. If it does, the court applies a balancing test. If it does not, the employee is not entitled to constitutional protection. Based on the district court's findings on the safety complaint retaliation claims, the Court was able to determine as a matter of law that the speech did not involve a matter of public concern. The plaintiffs were acting in response to their duties as employees and are not entitled to constitutional protection. Therefore, there was no constitutional violation, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. With respect to the political retaliation claim, however, the Court was unable to reach such a conclusion. The district court failed to identify the disputed and undisputed facts, nor did it make any findings regarding materiality. The Court remanded for that purpose.

• 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

HURST v. HANTKE (February 10, 2011)

Joseph Hurst suffered a stroke while incarcerated in an Illinois prison. More than eight months later, he filed a grievance complaining of his treatment by the prison’s medical staff. The prison denied the grievance on the grounds that it was not filed within 60 days, as required by law. Hurst appealed the denial, contending that the stroke left him almost totally incapacitated "until just recently." The prison rejected his appeal on the ground that Hurst provided no justification. Hurst brought suit pursuant to § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference on the part of the prison’s medical staff. Judge Kapala (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that Hurst had failed to exhaust his internal prison remedies. Hurst appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Evans, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court concluded that the prison was wrong in denying Hurst's appeal. The law does not require an inmate to submit evidence in support of a claim of good cause any more than a plaintiff is required to submit evidence with a complaint. The prison could have insisted on additional substantiation, in which case Hurst would have had to supply it. Notwithstanding the error at the internal prison level, the Court nevertheless affirmed. Because when he sued, and when the defendants moved for summary judgment, Hurst was required to present evidence that he exhausted his administrative remedies -- that is, that he had filed a grievance as soon as he was reasonably able. He had an opportunity -- and an obligation -- at that stage to substantiate his good cause claim. Because he did not, summary judgment for defendants was appropriate.

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

ESTATE OF DOROTHY DAVIS v. WELLS FARGO BANK (January 12, 2011)

In 1999, Dorothy Davis lived in a single-family home in Kankakee, Illinois. She was a widow, she was elderly, and she was African-American. A man approached her and offered to make some repairs to her home – and get a new home loan to pay for them. She ended up borrowing almost $90,000 from Mortgage Express and paying over $30,000 in settlement charges. She sued Mortgage Express. A jury found (apparently in Mortgage Express’ absence) in her favor. The court entered judgment for over $135,000 – a judgment she has since been unable to collect. Before Mortgage Express went out of business, it transferred her loan. The loan is now held by Wells Fargo Bank and serviced by Litton Loan Servicing. Wells Fargo and Litton have continued their attempts to collect on the loan. They proposed a modification, demanded payment, and pursued a foreclosure action. Davis, and now her estate, sued Wells Fargo and Litton. She asserted fraud and unconscionability claims under state law, race discrimination claims under both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and a claim for violating the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act. Judge Aspen (N.D. Ill.) dismissed all of the claims except the FHA claim, on which he granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Estate appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Evans, Sykes, and Hamilton affirmed. The Estate’s biggest problem lies in the statutes of limitations, which vary from one to five years. There are only three acts that occurred within even the longest of those periods that could support the Estate's claims: Litton's modification proposal, Wells Fargo's failure to tell Davis that it had acquired the mortgage, and Litton's payoff demand. The Court addressed each of the claims in that light. With respect to unconscionability, the allegations must relate to the formation of the contract. None of the allegations within the limitations periods do so -- the claim was properly dismissed. With respect to fraud, a plaintiff must show reliance. The only possible allegation within the limitations period relating to fraud is Wells Fargo's failure to advise Davis of the loan transfer. Assuming that could amount to a fraudulent omission, Davis never alleged that she relied on it -- the claim was properly dismissed. With respect to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, that statute requires lenders to make certain disclosures in connection with a loan. None of the allegations within the limitations period trigger the disclosure requirements -- the claim was properly dismissed. With respect to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Court stated that that Act prohibits race discrimination against an "applicant," which is further defined as a person who receives an "extension of credit." The Court concluded that Litton's offer to modify the loan, which occurred within the limitations period, was an "extension of credit." Davis further alleged that the offer was racially discriminatory. The Court therefore concluded that the claim should have survived a motion to dismiss. The Court nevertheless affirmed the district court. It found that the defendants would have prevailed on summary judgment for the same reason they did on the FHA claim. Davis simply failed to put forth evidence of discrimination. Finally, the Court considered that FHA claim, the only claim that survived a motion to dismiss in the district court. Davis was given the opportunity, on summary judgment, to come forward with evidence that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of race. Again, she was limited to conduct occurring within the limitations period. That "evidence" consisted of a) two unsigned and undated affidavits, which the court struck because they did not comply with the rules, b) the declarations of two former Wells Fargo employees, which the court struck because Davis never disclosed the declarants during discovery, and c) Davis' testimony that she believed she was the victim of race discrimination. Davis waived any complaint regarding the affidavits or declarations because she failed to raise any meaningful opposition to the district court’s reasoning on appeal. Her unsubstantiated personal beliefs are simply insufficient to support her claim.

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

CATALAN v. GMAC MORTGAGE CORP. (January 10, 2011)

Saul Catalan and Mia Morris bought a home in Matteson, Illinois in mid-2003. RBC Mortgage Company financed the purchase. Their first payment of $1,598 was due on August 1. Unfortunately, RBC's system showed a payment due on July 1, thus triggering an almost 2 year nightmare. By the time they made their first on-time payment, the RBC system consider them late. By the time they made their second on-time payment, RBC consider them in default and increased their monthly payment amount. Within months, RBC was returning their monthly checks uncashed. RBC filed for foreclosure in February of 2004 but transferred the mortgage toGMAC Mortgage in September. But nobody told the plaintiffs -- so they sent their September payment to RBC. In September, GMAC sent the plaintiffs an inaccurate account statement that showed them behind almost $8,000. GMAC also demanded proof of insurance coverage and then returned the September check (which it had received from RBC). The plaintiffs wrote a letter in October to the Department of Housing and Urban Development detailing the problems with RBC and GMAC and asking several questions about the servicing of their account. HUD sent the letter on to GMAC. Plaintiffs also wrote to GMAC directly on October 7 and October 15. Those letters sought information about the transfer of the loan and other information about the account. GMAC responded to the October 7 letter with information about the account. Then GMAC sent a letter telling them they were in default to the tune of almost $10,000. GMAC also responded to the letter it received from HUD. In November, the plaintiff sent over $11,000 to GMAC. They described the problems they had with RBC's servicing of the loan. They also made some demands regarding GMAC's future handling of their account. GMAC began foreclosure proceedings in November and began notifying the credit bureaus of the delinquency. Plaintiffs wrote several times in December, demanding that GMAC credit their $11,000 payment to the account. Instead of crediting the account, GMAC returned the check. In December, GMAC dismissed the foreclosure proceedings, returned the plaintiffs' December payment, and advised the plaintiffs that they were preparing for new foreclosure proceedings. Finally, in January of 2005, with HUD's help, the plaintiffs sent a check for almost $16,000 and GMAC brought their account current and stopped reporting it as delinquent. The plaintiff brought suit under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). They also brought state law claims for negligence and breach of contract. Judge Lindberg (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook, Circuit Judge Hamilton, and District Judge Springmann affirmed in part and reversed in part. RESPA is a consumer protection statute dealing with the servicing of real estate loans, among other things. It requires lenders to notify borrowers when a loan is transferred and to respond promptly to written requests for information. It does include a "safe harbor" for a lender that discovers an error and, within 60 days and before suit is filed or a written notice from the borrower is received, it corrects the error and notifies the borrower. The Court first considered the safe harbor provision since the district court relied on it to find for the defendants. The Court disagreed with the district court. The safe harbor provision clearly requires notification to the borrower of the error. The record shows no such notice and GMAC does not even contend that one exists. Without the safe harbor, the Court proceeded to consider whether GMAC violated RESPA's requirement that they respond to requests for information. That requirement is only triggered by a "qualified written request," which is defined as written correspondence that either requests information or states a belief that an account is in error. The plaintiffs identified five letters that they claim met this test. The Court first rejected the GMAC's argument that the letters did not qualify because they did not contain sufficient reasons for plaintiffs belief that the account was an error. Then the Court addressed each of the five letters in turn. First, it found the October 6 letter to HUD to be a "qualified written request." It contained much detail and it requested specific information. The fact that it was not sent directly to GMAC does not change the result. The statute allows for a request to come from an agent of the borrower. Next, the Court concluded that three letters were not "qualified written request." Letters that simply enclosed payments, stated expectations, or requested processing of a check -- but did not request information or state a belief that the account was in error – did not trigger the response requirement. Finally, the Court found the December 17 letter, which disputed GMAC's attempt to collect and which requested specific information, was a "qualified written request." The Court remanded to the district court to consider whether GMAC satisfied its RESPA obligations with respect to the two letters that triggered a duty. The Court also instructed the district court to consider, on remand, the claims that GMAC violated RESPA by failing to notify the plaintiffs of the loan transfer. The Court also reversed and remanded with respect to the breach of contract claim. That claim is that GMAC breached the agreement when they refused to accept the September and November payments. The district court held that plaintiffs' intentional nonpayment in October was a breach. The Court identified several issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. For example, was GMAC's delay in applying the payments reasonable or unreasonable and was plaintiffs' failure to pay justified by the earlier conduct of RBC and GMAC. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence claim. The Illinois economic loss doctrine precludes tort recovery for economic losses caused by a breach of contract. Finally, the Court rejected the GMAC argument that summary judgment was appropriate even on the RESPA and breach of contract claims because the plaintiffs lacked evidence of damages. The Court agreed that actual damages are essential for both the RESPA and breach of contract claim. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the Court found sufficient disputed issues of fact with respect to damages arising out of the credit application denials and the plaintiffs' emotional distress to preclude summary judgment.

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

MMG FINANCIAL CORP. v. MIDWEST AMUSEMENTS PARK (January 5, 2011)

Cameron Motorsports entered into a joint venture called Team Hurricane with MMG Financial. Go-karts made in Italy are branded by Cameron and sold by Team Hurricane, while MMG provides financing to the purchasers. Midwest Amusements Park operated a go-cart racetrack in Shawano, Wisconsin. Team America represented to Midwest that Cameron would assemble and break-in the go-karts, as well as supply training materials. Midwest ordered 24 go-karts. MMG sent Midwest a document purporting to represent its oral agreement to finance the purchase. The agreement reflected a 24% annual percentage rate. Midwest never signed the documents. The go-karts were nevertheless delivered. Soon thereafter, Midwest began complaining about the go-karts and about the proposed interest rate. Midwest eventually sent MMG a document reflecting a 12% rate -- MMG never signed that document. Meanwhile, Midwest never made a payment. In mid-2006, MMG sued Midwest for breach of contract. Midwest counterclaimed on the grounds that MMG never paid Cameron and that MMG breached warranties because the go-karts did not work properly. Judge Griesbach (E.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to MMG on the counterclaim. MMG's breach of contract case went to trial. The jury found for MMG, concluding that there was an oral contract with a 24% interest rate. Midwest appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook, Circuit Judge Flaum, and District Judge Hibbler affirmed. The Court first addressed Midwest's challenge to the court’s award of summary judgment on its counterclaim. The Court agreed with the district court that Midwest's evidence -- statements of its employees describing the statements of Cameron employees -- was "classic hearsay" and properly excluded. Since this was the only evidence Midwest relied on, summary judgment for MMG was proper. Next, the Court addressed Midwest’s affirmative defense that it was entitled to a set off because MMG failed to pay Team Hurricane for the go-karts. Midwest’s theory was that MMG’s failure to pay Team Hurricane resulted in Team Hurricane not addressing the many problems Midwest was having with the go-karts. The problem with Midwest's position is that it relied exclusively on an e-mail from CRG to Cameron. The Court never addressed whether the district court properly excluded that evidence. Instead, it concluded that the e-mail was irrelevant because it bore no relation to MMG's payment of its obligations. Finally, the Court summarily rejected Midwest's arguments regarding the jury instructions, the verdict form, and its motion for a new trial.

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

EEOC v. AUTOZONE (December 30, 2010)

John Shepherd was a parts sales manager at AutoZone in Macomb, Illinois. His job duties included pitching in to help with routine cleaning assignments, like mopping the floor. A computerized system assigned the jobs randomly. Shepherd had an old back injury, however, that interfered with his ability to perform these physical tasks. His head would swell, he would get headaches, and he would sweat profusely. He was receiving medical treatment. Notwithstanding the treatment, Shepherd took medical leaves on several locations between 2001 and 2003. After one such leave, he asked to be excused from the mop detail based on his physician’s physical restrictions. AutoZone accommodated his request, but only on occasion. When he returned from his 2003 leave, his physician originally recommended no mopping. He modified that restriction when AutoZone advised Shepherd that he could not return to work with the complete restriction. Shepherd suffered another incident while mopping in September of 2003. Again, he took a medical leave. Although he was authorized to return as early as December of 2003 with no greater restrictions than he had in September, AutoZone did not allow his return. Instead, it kept him on involuntary leave until February of 2005 and then dismissed him. The EEOC filed a complaint on his behalf pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged that AutoZone failed to accommodate Shepherd's disability between March and September 2003, that AutoZone discriminated against him by refusing to allow him to work after 2003, and that AutoZone's dismissal of him was in retaliation for his filing charges. Magistrate Judge Gorman (C.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to AutoZone on the failure to accommodate claim, concluding that Shepherd was not disabled within the meaning of the statute between March and September 2003. He did not reach the other claims. The EEOC appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Sykes, and Hamilton reversed and remanded. The ADA requires an employer to make "reasonable accommodations" for the mental or physical limitations of a "qualified individual with a disability." A disability under the ADA is a "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities." The Court concluded that a rational jury could find that Shepherd suffered from a disability in 2003. First, self-care is a major life activity and the record is replete with references to Shepherd's inability to care for himself. He needed help dressing, brushing his hair, bathing, tying his shoes, and brushing his teeth. He certainly had an impairment -- but was it substantial. The implementing regulations require a court to consider the nature, severity, duration, and expected continuing impact of an impairment. Here, the record, particularly on summary judgment, shows that Shepherd required help on an almost daily basis and experienced episodes multiple times a week. The Court had no difficulty in concluding that a reasonable jury could conclude that his impairment was substantial. Finally, the Court rejected AutoZone's contention that medical evidence was required to establish a substantial impairment. Neither the statute nor the regulations require it. The nature of the limitations and the detailed testimony were sufficient to establish the impairment and its scope.

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

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN v. PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE (December 28, 2010)

The Court withdrew this opinion on February 10, 2011 and granted Phoenix’ Petition for Rehearing limited to the sovereign immunity issue. Supplemental briefing and oral argument will focus on:
       Whether the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff‐appellee Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin (Wisconsin) did not waive any sovereign immunity it may have had
to the counterclaims asserted by defendant‐appellant Phoenix International Software (Phoenix),
or otherwise consent to their adjudication in this case?
       Whether the counterclaims brought by Phoenix against Wisconsin are compulsory or
permissive counterclaims under FED. R. CIV. P. 13? 

Phoenix International Software and the University of Wisconsin each registered the mark CONDOR with the Patent and Trademark Office. Phoenix has used the mark since 1978 and registered it in 1997. Wisconsin registered its mark in 2001. Each mark refers to computer software, although the Phoenix system is designed principally for mainframe systems and the Wisconsin system is designed principally for individual computers. Phoenix petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel Wisconsin's mark on the ground that it creates confusion. The Board granted the petition and canceled the mark. Wisconsin challenged the Board's decision by filing an action in federal district court. Phoenix counterclaimed for trademark infringement and false designation of origin. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) reversed the Board’s determination on Wisconsin's motion for summary judgment and also dismissed Phoenix's counterclaims on sovereign immunity grounds. Phoenix appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Wood (dissenting in part), and Tinder reversed and remanded for trial on the likelihood of confusion issue but affirmed on the sovereign immunity issue. The Court first addressed the likelihood of confusion issue and specifically the standard of review. Wisconsin had two choices to challenge the Board's decision: a direct appeal to the Federal Circuit limited to the record below and decided on a substantial evidence standard, or a new action in the district court allowing it to supplement the record below. Since Wisconsin chose the latter course, the Court's standard of review is layered. The Board's findings are owed typical administrative appeal deference while the new evidence is treated like a typical summary judgment record and viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. That required the Court to distinguish the Board's findings from new evidence below. The Court concluded that the district court erred in reversing the Board. The principal issue in the case is the likelihood of confusion. The Board considered the actual nature and use of the software while the district court focused its analysis on the description of the products in their registration materials. But whether the public may be confused (i.e., attribute the products to a single source) is the real focus of the multiple factor likelihood of confusion test. The district court was wrong when it focused principally on the products' similarities and matters of use (and doubly wrong when it focused exclusively on the written descriptions). On the other hand, the Board was right when it focused on the facts that the marks were identical, their functions were similar, and sophisticated purchasers were likely to believe that their sources were related. The Court reinstated the Board's findings. It considered Wisconsin's new evidence but found it not sufficient to overcome those findings and compel summary judgment in Wisconsin's favor. It therefore remanded for a trial on likelihood of confusion. The Court next considered Phoenix's counterclaims, which the district court dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds. There are two exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity. The first is when Congress regulates state behavior pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The second is when a state waives its immunity and consents to suit. The Court noted that the Supreme Court has already found unconstitutional the Patent Remedy Act's creation of state liability for patent infringement in Florida Prepaid. Given the similarities between the two statutes, the Court found the decision controlling. With respect to waiver, the Court first rejected the argument that Wisconsin's participation in the regulated trademark process amounted to waver, again relying on Florida Prepaid. Lastly, the Court addressed and rejected the argument that Wisconsin voluntarily waived its sovereign immunity when it chose to challenge the Court's decision by filing a suit in the district court. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's Lapides decision, in which Georgia was not allowed to invoke sovereign immunity after it removed a case from state court. Here, Wisconsin's filing simply reflected its choice of a forum for judicial review. It did not alter the nature of the proceedings in any way.

Judge Wood agreed with the majority on the likelihood of confusion with issue and also with respect to whether Wisconsin's participation in a federal regulatory program constituted a waiver of sovereign immunity. She dissented, however, on the issue of whether Wisconsin's district court challenge to the Board’s decision constituted a waiver. The issue is not, she said, whether the state is a defendant, a plaintiff, an intervenor, or an appellant. It is, instead, the voluntariness of the decision and its consequences. Here, Wisconsin chose to file a case. Lapides controls -- Wisconsin has waived sovereign immunity. Wisconsin was not even required to appeal. It could have accepted that the Board's decision. Similarly, it could have appealed to the Federal Circuit, where Phoenix would not have been able to file a counter court. Instead, Wisconsin chose to gain a litigation advantage by filing in the district court. Just like in the Lapides case, Wisconsin was using its sovereign immunity to gain a litigation advantage. Finally, Judge Wood wrote at length suggesting that it may be time to reconsider a "commercial act" exception to the scope of sovereign immunity.

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

SALLENGER v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD (December 17, 2010)

In early 2002, Andrew Sallenger was living with his mother, his sister, and his sister's four children at his mother's house in Springfield, Illinois. Sallenger suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. In the middle of the night on April 30, Sallenger experienced a psychotic episode. He was screaming, breaking things, and running around the house naked. His sister called 911. She warned the police of his condition and his strength (6 feet tall, 262 pounds). Three officers responded and eventually, although not without great difficulty, were able to subdue him. They used a hobble, a device that limits movement by strapping one's lower legs to one's hands. A few minutes after the officers subdued Sallenger with a hobble, he stopped breathing. The officers removed the hobble and administered CPR, without success. Sallenger’s Estate brought several claims against the officers and the City, including a § 1983 claim alleging a Fourth Amendment violation for failing to adequately respond to Sallenger’s medical needs and a Monell claim against the City for failure to train in the use of the hobble. They also brought excessive force claims against the three officers. Those claims were tried to a jury and resolved in the officers' favor. Judge Scott (C.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment against the Estate on the medical needs and Monell claims. The Estate appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed. The Court applied an objective reasonableness standard to the medical needs claim and considered four criteria: the need for medical attention, the severity of the need, the nature of the required treatment, and any police interests. The Estate's case rests on the timing of two police calls and the inferences that can be drawn from them. One call came in at 2:15 a.m. In that call, one of the officers reported that Sallenger was unconscious. The second call, which came in at 2:22 a.m., was from a police lieutenant reporting that he was at the scene. Combined with the fact that the lieutenant was present when efforts to resuscitate began, the Estate argues that it is entitled to an inference that the officers waited seven minutes after knowing Sallenger was unconscious before they tried to resuscitate him. The Court rejected this inference. All inferences must be drawn in the Estate’s favor on summary judgment, but those inferences must be reasonable. Here, the officers and Sallenger's sister all testified that resuscitation efforts began as soon as they knew that he was unconscious. The lieutenant also testified that his call did not necessarily take place immediately upon his arrival. In light of that testimony, and without more support, the inference requested by the Estate is unreasonable. The Court also agreed with the district court's summary judgment ruling on the Monell claim. A municipality cannot be liable unless there is an underlying constitutional violation by an employee. Here, a jury found that none of the officers was liable for a constitutional violation on the excessive force claim and the Court affirmed summary judgment for the officers on the medical needs claim. Therefore, there can be no municipal liability. 

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

CYRUS v. TOWN OF MUKWONAGO (November 10, 2010)

Twenty-nine-year-old Nicholas Cyrus lived with his parents in Mukwonago, Wisconsin. Cyrus suffered from bipolar disorder and had occasional delusional episodes. He was known by the local police in his small community for his unusual behavior but was not considered dangerous. On the evening of July 8, 2006, Cyrus left his parents' home wearing only his bathrobe following a dispute with his mother . He remained missing until early the next morning when a town resident reported to the police that an unknown man wearing only a bathrobe was trespassing on his property. Lt. Czarnecki responded to the call. Czarnecki suspected that the "unknown man" was Cyrus. He knew Cyrus and knew that he had been reported missing the night before. There are slight factual disputes regarding what happened next but, generally, Czarnecki unsuccessfully tried to get Cyrus' attention and cooperation. After Cyrus refused a request to talk and moved toward the house, Czarnecki used his Taser on him. Cyrus fell to the ground. He tried to get up but wobbled and fell. Czarnecki used his Taser again and Cyrus rolled down the driveway. By this time, a second officer had arrived at the scene. The two officers tried to handcuff Cyrus but he was lying on his hands. When the officers could not pry his hands loose, Czarnecki used his Taser several more times. The officers finally got him handcuffed but, when they rolled him over, they discovered he was not breathing. Cyrus died later that day. His parents brought a § 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against the officers and the municipality. The plaintiffs offered two experts -- one to testify regarding reasonable force and one (the Medical Examiner, who reformed the autopsy) on the cause of death. The Medical Examiner testified at her deposition that many factors contributed to Cyrus' death, including the stress of the struggle, his fear, his mental condition, his physical position, the pain, and the shock. She testified that she could not state that any particular factor was more significant than another. Judge Randa (E.D. Wis.) excluded the testimony of both experts relating to the cause of death, principally because the Medical Examiner could not isolate a primary cause of Cyrus' death. The court then granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that there were no material disputes of fact and that the Taser use was not excessive force as a matter of law. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Bauer and Sykes and District Judge Simon reversed and remanded. The Court recognized that most of the material facts were undisputed (principally because the victim was dead). However, it rejected the district court's conclusion for two reasons. First, the Court identified several material facts that were in dispute. Czarnecki testified that he used his Taser only five or six times but the Taser's internal register recorded 12 trigger pulls. The parties also disagreed about whether Cyrus walked or ran toward the house. Second, excessive force claims require an analysis of all the circumstances surrounding the use of force. Facts that may not technically be in dispute may be susceptible of different interpretations, making summary judgment appropriate. For example, there were potentially different inferences that a jury could draw from the fact that Cyrus rolled down the driveway. Was it an attempt to escape or merely an involuntary reaction to the shock? Other factors the jury could consider also tended to support the unreasonableness of the force: Cyrus had not committed a serious offense, he did not violently resist the officers, he was not armed, and he suffered from a mental illness. Since a jury could reasonably conclude that Czarnecki's multiple Taser uses constituted unreasonable force, summary judgment was inappropriate. The Court also rejected defendants' alternative position that plaintiffs could not prove causation without the excluded expert testimony. The Court conceded that proof of causation will be more difficult without the Medical Examiner's testimony. However, it found that the record was not totally devoid of evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the force caused Cyrus's death. Expert testimony is not necessary if the facts relied on are such that lay persons can understand them and draw appropriate conclusions from them. Here, Cyrus stopped breathing shortly after receiving the shocks, there is no evidence of a prior injury or condition, the toxicology report showed the absence of drugs, and there is no evidence of an intervening cause. On this record, the Court concluded that a jury could find causation.

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

On June 16, 2011, the Court granted a petition for panel rehearing and vacated this opinion and judgment.

COSTELLO v. GRUNDON (October 18, 2010)

Several senior Comdisco, Inc. employees participated in the company’s shared investment plan (SIP) program. Under the program: a) participants purchased Comdisco stock, b) the purchase was funded exclusively by personal loans, c) the participants executed promissory notes in their personal capacities, d) Comdisco guaranteed the loans, e) the lenders remitted the loan proceeds directly to Comdisco, f) Comdisco held the shares, g) there were several restrictions on the ability to sell the stock, and h) participants delivered a blank stock power to Comdisco. Within two years, the stock price had risen from $34.50 to $53.00. Many participants sold their shares and made a nice profit. Others, however, did not and were still holding the stock when Comdisco went into bankruptcy. The lenders settled with Comdisco on the guaranty obligation. As part of the settlement, the lenders assigned their rights under the notes to the Comdisco Litigation Trustee. The Trustee brought individual actions against the participants. He moved for summary judgment against two of the participants. The court granted the Trustee’s motion, holding that the Trustee made a prima facie case and rejecting several defenses: a) the alleged misrepresentations were expressions of legal opinion and could not support a fraud finding, b) defendants had not shown reliance, c) defendants could not assert a violation of Regulation U as a defense, and d) a negligent misrepresentation defense was not available against the Trustee. The Trustee subsequently moved for summary judgment against the remaining defendants on the same papers. Defendants raised new defenses. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) granted the Trustee’s motion, rejecting the additional defenses. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner, and Tinder affirmed in part and vacated in part. The Court addressed each of the many arguments on appeal in turn. Regulations G and U Violations Defense: Although the Court discussed at length and questioned the district court’s treatment of Comdisco’s or the lenders’ violation of Regulation U or G, it ultimately concluded that it did not need to decide the issue. It concurred with the district court that, even if a violation existed, it did not provide an illegality defense. Relying on Bassler, Blair, and Shearson, the Court noted that the regulations were not meant to protect individual investors and a violation does not make the underlying contract illegal. Section 10(b) Illegality Defense: The Court did disagree with the district court’s treatment of defendants’ defense under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although the Trustee moved for summary judgment based only on the absence of a false statement, the district court granted it on the absence of scienter, raised only in the reply brief. The Court stated that the Trustee had the initial burden of identifying the basis of his request for relief – the defendants were not required to respond to other grounds, even if later raised in the reply. Although the defendants could have responded to the Trustee’s arguments or sought further discovery, they were not required to do so. Furthermore, the Court found that the district court’s requirement of a heightened “strong inference” of scienter was improper. Finally, the Court declined to itself affirm on the alternative grounds raised by the Trustee in its reply below. Section 17(a) Defense: The district court’s ruling with respect to defendants’ defense under § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 was erroneous for the same reason as the ruling on § 10(b). The court improperly ruled that defendants failed to present evidence of scienter when they were under no obligation to do so at this stage of the proceedings. Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Set-Off Defenses: With respect to the fraud and negligent misrepresentation set-off defenses, the district court adopted the ruling and reasoning of it decision on the first summary judgment motion. There is nothing wrong with that, said the Court, except here the defendants presented a new legal argument on the fraud defense and additional evidence with respect on the negligent misrepresentation defense that the court did not consider. The Court concluded that summary judgment in the Trustee’s favor on both was error. Excuse of Non-Performance Defense: Lastly, the Court held that it was error to grant summary judgment on the excuse of non-performance defense. The defendants argued that the lenders’ non-compliance with § 17(a), § 10(b), and Regulation U amounted to a breach of contract and thus excused their performance. The Court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to the §§ 17(a) and 10(b) claims – given that the Court had just vacated the summary judgments on the underlying defenses. With respect to Regulation U, however, the Court agreed that a violation would not excuse performance since the participants were not in the “zone of interest.” The Court remanded for further proceedings.

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

COGSWELL v. CITIFINANCIAL MORTGAGE CO. (October 5, 2010)

In January 2001, the Patrick Group (PG) purchased a mortgage (and the underlying note) from CitiFinancial Mortgage Co. However, CitiFinancial could not locate the original note or mortgage. It gave PG a copy of the mortgage but could not locate even a copy of the note. PG ran into complications when it substituted for CitiFinancial in the pending foreclosure proceeding. A title search disclosed a gap in the recorded ownership of the mortgage. Because PG could not produce even a copy of the note, the court directed a verdict against PG. The appellate court affirmed. PG then brought suit for breach of contract against CitiFinancial. Judge Norgle (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to CitiFinancial, concluding that the agreement did not require transfer of the note and that, even if it did, CitiFinancial’s failure to transfer was not the cause of PG's damages. PG appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Ripple, and Sykes reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed whether the contract required the physical transfer of the note. The Court took issue with the district court's treatment of this as a question of law, as if it were a question regarding the existence of a contract. Here, there is no doubt that a contract exists. The only question concerns its terms -- and that is a question of fact. Relying on PG's offer letter, the contract itself, and an uncontested affidavit, the Court concluded that the contract was ambiguous. Although the district court's reading of the contract was plausible, it is not the only reasonable reading. The district court improperly resolved this factual dispute on summary judgment. It must go to a trier of fact. The Court turned to causation. Again, the Court disagreed with the district court and its holding that the failure to transfer was not the cause of damages because PG could have enforced its rights on alternative paths. The Court stated that Illinois applies a special rule to breach of contract cases when the alleged harm is a result of an adverse judicial outcome. In those cases, causation is a question of law and depends on an analysis of what a reasonable court would have done had the defendant not breached the contract. Here, the Court concluded that a reasonable Illinois court would have allowed PG to proceed with the foreclosure if it had a copy of the note. Thus, CitiFinancial's breach caused PG's damages. The Court also rejected CitiFinancial’s alternative paths argument, although it first re-categorized the arguments as "failed to mitigate," rather than failed to prove causation. It held that, under Illinois foreclosure law, a reasonable court would have ruled against PG on both the lost-note affidavit and the personal judgment theories.

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

MCCANN v. IROQOUIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (September 13, 2010)

Valerie McCann was forced out of her job as director of physicians' services at Iroquois Memorial Hospital in early February of 2006, most likely as part of a reorganization spearheaded by a new CEO. She was not happy. Dr. Leslie Lindberg provided radiology services to the Hospital. He also disapproved of the new administration and feared that the reorganization could put his opportunities at risk as well. McCann paid a visit to Dr. Lindberg at the Hospital later in February on unrelated business. At some point, the conversation turned to the subject of the Hospital. They were both critical of the Hospital, the CEO, and the Trustees. Unbeknownst to them, much of the conversation was recorded on Lindberg's dictation machine. Susan Freed, who oversaw the staff that transcribed dictated notes, learned of the conversation. She had it transcribed and she turned it over to the CEO. The CEO informed the trustees and provided the transcript to one of them. McCann and Lindberg brought suit against Freed, the CEO, the Hospital, and the trustees. They asserted claims under the Federal Wiretap Act as well as state law. Plaintiffs' theory is that Freed, while collecting some papers from Lindberg's office during his conversation with McCann, surreptitiously turned on his dictation machine to record the conversation. Freed denied doing so. Defendants’ theory is that Lindberg forgot to turn the machine off when McCann arrived. Judge Baker (C.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. McCann and Lindberg appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Rovner affirmed with respect to the CEO and the trustees but vacated and remanded with respect to the Hospital and Freed. The Court first addressed defendants' argument that it should not consider the McCann and Lindberg affidavits submitted in response to the summary judgment motion because they contradicted earlier testimony about the date of the conversation. The Court conceded that such a rule exists but cautioned that it does not apply when sufficient reasons are provided for any discrepancies. First of all, the Court thought the date to be immaterial. Second, and more important, the changes are easily explained here. The plaintiffs were originally mistaken about the date of the recorded conversation. Information that became readily available only after the complaint was filed (the timestamp on the recording, cell phone records, and canceled checks) all confirmed that the conversation took place on February 24 -- not February 10, as the plaintiffs originally believed. On the merits, the Court addressed the elements of the Wiretap Act claims. The Act prohibits intentionally "intercepting" a conversation or using or disclosing the contents of an interception, knowing that it was unlawful. The Court concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact when all facts and inferences were drawn in plaintiffs' favor. Even if one side's version of the facts or theory is more believable, summary judgment is not the stage to weigh evidence or make credibility determinations. The claims against Freed and the Hospital can proceed. On the other hand, the record contains no evidence on which to base the CEO’s or the trustees’ liability. The only allegation against the CEO is that he used or disclosed the interception -- but that Act requires that he do so with the knowledge that the interception was unlawful. The record does not support such a conclusion. With respect to the trustees, the only allegation is that one of them knew the interception was illegal -- but not that he used or disclosed the information. Even if true, his knowledge would not amount to a violation of the Act.

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

GOODMAN v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (September 3, 2010)

Claudette Goodman was hired in August 2004 as a private security guard by the National Security Agency (National). Her initial pay was $8.25 an hour. National assigned her to an overnight shift at a housing complex. For family reasons, Goodman desired a daytime shift. She soon transferred to a different location on the more desirable dayshift. Although she was promoted to supervisor with a raise to $8.75, her employment was not without problems. National had difficulty with its payroll -- paying late, paying less than owed, bouncing checks, etc. In mid-2005, she began suspecting that National paid its male employees more than she. The owner denied it. In any event, in October 2005, she found another job at $10.00 an hour and quit her job at National. She brought suit against National under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Judge Norgle (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Goodman appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Sykes, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed her retaliation claims under both statutes. Goodman relied on three acts in support of her claims -- that her hours were reduced, that she was demoted, and that she was reassigned. Unfortunately, the evidence did not fully support the accuracy of her claims. For example, her own testimony was that her hours did not change and that she was never actually reassigned (only threatened). To the extent it did, she failed to establish any harm. Her testimony suffered from inconsistencies and a lack of clarity and was insufficient to support a retaliation claim. Goodman's equal pay claims suffered from the same lack of clarity in the record. She offered the testimony of Michael Moore, a male supervisor, in support of the claim. Upon close examination, and adjusting for confusion about certain dates, the Court concluded that the evidence established that Goodman was in fact paid more than Moore. Obviously, that was fatal to her Equal Pay Act claim.

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

CARMICHAEL v. VILLAGE OF PALATINE (May 21, 2010)

Palatine police officer Timothy Sharkey stopped an automobile being driven by Albert Carmichael and Keith Sawyer as they returned to their motel parking lot. Sharkey searched both Carmichael and the automobile. He found marijuana and cocaine. When asked why he had pulled them over, Sharkey stated that it was because the automobile lacked a front license plate and had tinted windows. After fellow officer Steve Bushore arrived, Sharkey conducted a search of Sawyer. In the motel parking lot, he pulled Sawyer's pants down and shined a flashlight into his underwear. The officers let Sawyer go but arrested Carmichael on drug charges. They also cited him for having no functioning taillights. In his report, Officer Sharkey made no mention of the tinted windows or absence of front license plate. At a hearing on a motion to suppress the evidence, Sharkey testified that the reason for his stop was the non-functioning tail lights, not the license plate or tinted window. Other testimony established that the tail lights were functioning at the time of the stop. The trial judge suppressed the evidence and all charges were dropped. Carmichael and Sawyer sued the Village and the officers under § 1983. They alleged unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, and excessive force, as well as state law claims. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. She concluded, on the search and seizure claim, that the fact that a window was tinted and the front plate was missing provided probable cause. On Sawyer's unreasonable search claim, she concluded that it was constitutional without any detailed examination of the manner in which it was carried out. The court found the remainder of the claims waived. Carmichael and Sawyer appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion, and Williams affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. A traffic stop is reasonable, said the Court, if the police have probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. The inquiry is an objective one and focuses on what the officer knew at the moment of the stop. Here, the tinted window and missing license plate did constitute moving violations and could have supported a stop of the vehicle. However, the uncontroverted evidence is that Officer Sharkey was not aware of either violation at the time to stop. Therefore, probable cause did not exist. For much the same reason, the Court concluded that Sharkey was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also found summary judgment with respect to the search of Sawyer in error. Although the defendants purported to request summary judgment on all counts, they made no mention of this search in their brief in the district court. They bear the initial burden of demonstrating that the summary judgment requirements are met -- they failed to do so. Conversely, the district court was correct in concluding that the plaintiffs waived the remainder of their federal and state law claims because of their perfunctory response to the defendants' request for summary judgment on those issues.

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

LEVAN v. GEORGE (April 28, 2010)

It all started when Michael Levan got a parking ticket in Peoria. He missed a scheduled hearing and a default judgment was entered. A motion to vacate the default was filed by his attorney. On the day he thought it was scheduled to be heard, Levan went to the courthouse and engaged the city's attorney in conversation. When she advised him that the motion was not scheduled for that day, a confrontation ensued. The parties disagree about how the confrontation escalated. It is undisputed, however, that two court security officers handcuffed and pepper-sprayed Levan, and took him to a holding cell. Levan was later acquitted of disorderly conduct charges. He brought suit against the county and the security officers for false arrest and excessive use of force. A magistrate judge denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, finding genuine issues of material fact. The officers and the County appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Wood, and Hamilton dismissed the appeal. The Court first recognized that, although not a final judgment, a denial of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage can sometimes be appealable. A denial is not appealable, however, when it rests on factual rather than legal grounds. As the Supreme Court stated in Johnson, an appeal is allowed to challenge the "clearly established" law part of the qualified immunity analysis when the legal issues are separable from the factual issues underlying the claim. Here, the magistrate Judge found genuine issues of material fact both with respect to probable cause to arrest and probable cause to use force. The individual defendants' entitlement to qualified immunity turns on the resolution of those issues of fact. The denial is therefore not appealable.

• 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

PATTERSON v. INDIANA NEWSPAPERS, INC. (December 8, 2009)

Lisa Coffey and James Patterson were both employees in the editorial department of The Indianapolis Star in 2003 when Dennis Ryerson was named editor. Both describe themselves as "traditional Christians" opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds. Both believe that Ryerson's opposing view was somehow responsible for their employment troubles. Neither, however, had particularly stellar employment records. Coffey regularly violated the newspaper's overtime rule. She ultimately left the newspaper when a restructuring left her with the choice of a part-time editorial job or a full-time copy-desk job -- when what she wanted was a full-time editorial job. Patterson's issues were more substantive. His writing was weak and he made frequent, serious mistakes. After many warnings, Patterson was fired. Coffey and Patterson brought suit. They both alleged violations of Title VII for discrimination on the basis of religion. Patterson also alleges age and race discrimination, in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA), and retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. Finally both plaintiffs include a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment against both plaintiffs. Coffey and Patterson appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum and Sykes affirmed. Although the Court noted the parties' sharply diverging views of the facts in some respects, it ultimately found no reason to resolve them. Both plaintiffs were required to establish that they met their employer's legitimate performance expectations and that they were treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee. With respect to Coffey, the Court concluded that she failed to establish her prima facie case. First, the evidence of her regular violation of the overtime policy was undisputed. Second, she failed to identify any similarly situated employee, much less one who was treated more favorably. Patterson suffered the same fate. All of his discrimination claims (religion, race, and age) and his retaliation claim require that he prove that he was meeting the newspaper's expectations. To the contrary, the record contains his long history of performance problems. Finally, the Court rejected the state law negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Indiana law requires a "direct physical impact" to recover for emotional distress -- losing a job does not qualify.

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

GONZALEZ v. CITY OF ELGIN (August 20, 2009)

A number of former high school classmates attended a wedding. Afterward, they gathered at the home of one of them. They visited late into the night and early morning. As the group was about to break up, one of them (who had left earlier to go to a local restaurant) returned to tell the others that his wife and brother were being assaulted outside the restaurant. Several members of the group went to the restaurant. The fight was over and the attackers were gone – but the police had arrived. Here, the testimony in the record supports two versions of a story. Several members of the group described a situation in which a number of police officers were out of control. They testified to beatings, kicks, and pepper-sprays. The police, on the other hand, described an unruly mob, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The police arrested several of the group. Most of the charges were dismissed. Six members of the group brought an action against the City and several police officers. They alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, under § 1983, for unlawful arrest, excessive force, and failure to intervene. They also alleged state law malicious prosecution and a respondeat superior claim against the City. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and added that the defendants were also entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum and Wood reversed and remanded. On the unlawful arrest claim, the Court noted that the plaintiffs had to show an arrest without probable cause. The Court reviewed the evidence in support of probable cause for the arrests for mob action, resisting arrest and battery. In each case, the Court concluded that the facts were contested. The plaintiffs’ version supported a conclusion that probable cause did not exist. On the excessive force claims, the Court again criticized the lower court for not viewing the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiffs. A reasonable jury could find that the police used greater force than necessary considering the totality of circumstances. For the same reason, the failure to intervene judgment was reversed. Next, the Court had little difficulty in rejecting the qualified immunity argument. The plaintiffs stated constitutional violations of an arrest without probable cause and the use of excessive force. Both constitutional rights are clearly established. Finally, the Court reversed with respect to the state law claims for much the same reason – there were genuine issues of material fact.

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

HK SYSTEMS v. EATON CORPORATION (January 28, 2009)

IBP owned a large beef-processing plant in Nebraska. It wanted to replace its material handling system at the plant. Alvey and an Eaton Corporation (“Eaton”) subsidiary submitted the successful joint bid. During the contract negotiations, Eaton sold its subsidiary to HK Systems, Inc. (“HK”). The contract of sale contained broad cross-indemnities. A month later, IBP and HK entered into a contract for the purchase of the system. IBP was not satisfied with the speed at which the system operated and sued HK in state court. IBP alleged fraud, based on a system-speed representation made by Eaton before it sold its subsidiary, and breach of contract, based on a system-speed provision of the contract. The suit was settled for $8 million, $5 million from Alvey and $3 million from HK. HK brought this suit against Eaton for indemnification. Eaton argued that HK’s loss had been caused by HK’s own actions, not Eaton’s. The court originally denied summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law. A jury awarded HK $3 million. The court reconsidered the earlier motion for summary judgment and granted it. HK appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple and Evans affirmed. The Court first noted that there was nothing improper in the district court’s reconsideration of it summary judgment ruling. Eaton had not preserved its argument that HK was responsible for its loss in its motion for judgment as a matter of law. Although the doctrine of the law of the case normally counsels against a judge reconsidering an earlier ruling, the district court does have discretion to do so when it is convinced that its earlier ruling was wrong and no harm will result. Here, the Court observed that the trial judge ruled on the meaning of the indemnification clause, which he considered a question of law. On reconsideration, he ruled that Eaton was not liable for HK’s loss because the contract between HK and IBP was an intervening cause. The Court agreed with the district court’s view on reconsideration, although it preferred framing the issue in terms of responsibility rather than cause. In any multiple factor case, responsibility is determined by reference to policy. Sometimes intervening acts are enough to shield one from liability – other times not. The Court referred to the contract between HK and Eaton. It contained mirror-image indemnification provisions. If Eaton was liable to HK for certain losses due to its representations, then HK was liable to Eaton for the loss it suffered because of its act – signing the contract – that occurred after the sale. The Court found that the district court’s resolution of this dilemma by adopting a narrow reading of the indemnity was consistent with the Court’s earlier decision holding that an indemnity will normally not apply, without explicit language, to a breach of contract claim for a contract entered into after the indemnity. The Court explained the policy reasons for such a holding. A party is typically in control of its contracts and performance. One should not be able to insure or acquire an indemnity to protect against liability for a breach when the one most able to protect against a breach is the very person insured. Here, HK should have made sure that its new subsidiary was capable of performing its contractual obligations to IBP before entering into the agreement. It cannot shift that liability to Eaton.

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

HASAN v. FOLEY & LARDNER (December 15, 2008)

Zafar Hasan is a Muslim of Indian descent. In 2000, he joined the law firm of Foley & Lardner (“Foley”) as an associate. (The following are facts construed in a light most favorable to Hasan.) During his first year at the firm, he received mostly positive reviews and maintained high billable hours. The events of September 11, 2001 changed Hasan’s standing in the firm. Hasan’s billable hours dropped considerably and he received much less positive reviews. At a meeting in October of 2002, Foley decided to fire Hasan. The firm notified Hasan in December that he was being terminated. He filed suit in 2004, alleging that Foley violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court granted Foley’s motion for summary judgment. Hasan appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Coffey, Ripple and Manion reversed and remanded. The Court noted that Hasan proceeded under the “direct method” of proving discrimination. Under the direct method, a plaintiff must present evidence, direct or circumstantial, that points to a discriminatory reason for the action of the employer. Courts accept three types of circumstantial evidence in a direct method case. Hasan relies on two types: a) suspicious timing, ambiguous statements, or comments directed at others in the same group, and b) evidence that the employer’s stated reasons for its conduct is not worthy of belief. Hasan’s evidence included: a partner’s anti-Muslim comments, suspicious timing in Hasan’s downturn in billable hours, the financial health of the firm, Foley’s treatment of other Muslim associates, and a changing justification for Foley’s conduct once it located Hasan’s performance reviews. The Court disagreed with the district court’s treatment of some of the evidence. It concluded, for example, that: a) evidence of an anti-Muslim comment by a partner who was not Hasan’s supervisor was valid nonetheless because the partner attended the meeting at which Foley decided to terminate Hasan (and, in fact, may have instigated the decision), b) evidence of an anti-Muslim remark made a year before the decision to terminate may nonetheless be valid circumstantial evidence when it was made at about the time when Foley began to assign work elsewhere, which in turn became a stated reason for his termination, and c) evidence regarding Foley’s treatment of other Muslims is not per se irrelevant but may be relevant depending on how closely tied it is to Hasan’s circumstances. The Court rejected Foley’s argument that Hasan failed to produce evidence of its treatment of similarly situated employees. The direct method of proof does not require such evidence. Finally, the Court noted that Foley initially claimed that it fired Hasan for poor performance but changed its stance when early, positive performance reviews were discovered and produced. They then claimed that Hasan was fired because the firm did not have enough work to keep all associates busy. The Court held that a reasonable jury could have believed both reasons to be pretext. The Court held that the totality of the evidence and possible inferences precluded summary judgment for Foley and remanded to the district court.

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