Civil Rights
[05/12] Jacobs v. Clark County Sch. Dist.
In a case raising constitutional challenges to a public school district's mandatory dress policies or "school uniform policies," the circuit court rules that neither the school district's regulation, which created a standard dress code for all county students, nor the individual school uniform policies implemented thereunder violated plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise, or due process rights.
[05/12] Harden-Bey v. Rutter
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against several employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections challenging plaintiff's placement and continued confinement in administrative segregation, dismissal pursuant to section 1997e(c) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing a due process claim on the ground that the duration of plaintiff's prison discipline, three years and counting, does not affect whether he has a protected liberty interest; but 2) he failed to state a cognizable cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim or a cognizable equal protection claim.
[05/09] McCann v. Tillman
In a Title VII suit against an employer alleging claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, summary judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) the record demonstrated that employee's claims of favorable disparate treatment of similarly situated white employees were inapposite to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; 2) employee failed to meet the burden of showing that the reasons for her employer's actions were actually a pretext for retaliatory conduct; and 3) despite employee's allegations of exposure to offensive derogatory language at work, the evidence presented was insufficient to support a claim of hostile work environment.
[05/06] Fieger v. Cox
In an action alleging vindictive prosecution against Michigan's Attorney General, a state Supreme Court Justice, and the state's Secretary of State, as well as others in the AG's office, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims and imposition of sanctions against them are affirmed where: 1) because the issues raised in a state court were substantially the same as those raised in the district court, because those interests implicated important state interests, and because the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to raise their constitutional challenge in the state proceedings, the district court properly refrained from exercising jurisdiction in this case; and 2) imposing sanctions for plaintiffs' claims against the justice was not an abuse of discretion.
More...
Class Actions
[05/02] Savedoff v. Access Group, Inc.
In a class action raising breach of contract claims, partial summary judgment for plaintiff on the issue of liability on such claims is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) the language of the contract did not limit defendant's collection of additional interest to a borrower's final monthly payment at the end of the loan term; 2) the language of the contract did not prohibit defendant from collecting additional interest from borrower's regular monthly payments; and 3) the contract was silent as to the application of borrower's monthly payments to the additional interest before applying them to reduce the principal balance.
[04/29] Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
In a class action lawsuit against an insurance corporation challenging the sale of its fixed deferred annuities, an order, which effectively prevents defendant from proceeding with any settlement negotiations on similar class action claims raised in any other courts without permission from plaintiff's lead counsel, is reversed where: 1) in the context of the All Writs Act, there was no proper support for the district court's enjoining of proceedings in other courts; and 2) even if there were, the Anti-Injunction Act barred such injunction.
[04/25] Kirschbaum vs. Reliant Energy, Inc.
Certification of a class and grant of corporate defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims related to plaintiff-employee's ERISA class action is affirmed where: 1) even if defendants had a fiduciary duty to liquidate a particular investment option in the plan (defendant-company's stock fund) and cease purchasing its shares, notwithstanding the plan's express contrary requirements; nevertheless, 2) plaintiff fell short of bearing his heavy burden to rebut the presumption that defendants satisfied their legal duties.
[04/22] Benzman v. Whitman
An order denying in part and granting in part defendants' motions to dismiss claims for damages against former EPA administrator, and for other relief against EPA for alleged constitutional and statutory violations in the aftermath of the 9/11 disaster, is reversed in part where the district court improperly denied defendants' motion to dismiss: 1) claims of Fifth Amendment substantive due process violations to be free from government-created health risk; and 2) constitutional claims under the Administrative Procedure Act.
More...
Labor & Employment Law
[05/12] Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Studio Transp. Drivers Local 399
Application to enforce an NLRB order finding that a union committed an unfair labor practice against intervenor, who refused to join the union, is granted where the NLRB's interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act, in finding that the union violated the Act by offsetting its "liquidated damages" from its nonrepresentational expenses, was rational and consistent with the Act.
[05/09] Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
Mall's petition for review of a National Labor Relations Board order, which held that it was a violation of a party's free speech rights under the California Constitution to require a permit applicant to agree not to urge consumers to boycott any of the mall's tenants as a condition to obtaining a permit to engage in expressive activities at the mall, is denied where petitioner failed to raise its constitutional arguments before the circuit court in prior proceedings, and waited until it petitioned the California Supreme Court for a rehearing.
[05/09] McCann v. Tillman
In a Title VII suit against an employer alleging claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, summary judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) the record demonstrated that employee's claims of favorable disparate treatment of similarly situated white employees were inapposite to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; 2) employee failed to meet the burden of showing that the reasons for her employer's actions were actually a pretext for retaliatory conduct; and 3) despite employee's allegations of exposure to offensive derogatory language at work, the evidence presented was insufficient to support a claim of hostile work environment.
[05/08] U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
More...
