6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Mar. 31 - Apr. 4, 2008
Opinions in the cases listed below were filed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit:
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
| Opinion | Short Title/District |
|---|---|
| 08a0129p.06 2008/03/31 |
Thompson v. North Amer Stainless Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort TARNOW, District Judge. Shortly after Appellant Eric Thompson’s fiancée filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against their common employer, the Appellee, Thompson was terminated. The parties to this appeal ask whether the anti-retaliation provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protect a related or associated third party from retaliation under such circumstances. We hold that that they do, and REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer. |
| 08a0130p.06 2008/03/31 |
Delmas Conley v. NLRB National Labor Relations Board |
| 08a0131p.06 2008/03/31 |
Doe v. Bredesen Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville |
| 08a0132p.06 2008/03/31 |
USA v. Martin Western District of Kentucky at Louisville |
| 08a0133p.06 2008/04/01 |
Cline v. BWXT Y-12, LLC Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Royal Cline challenges a decision rejecting his state-law, agediscrimination claims as a matter of law. One of Cline’s claims is barred by the statute of limitations, and another claim fails because the company offered a nondiscriminatory, non-pretextual reason for its decision. But a third claim, based on retaliation, deserves further consideration because a reasonable jury could infer that the company had knowledge of this lawsuit and took an adverse employment action because of it. |
| 08a0134p.06 2008/04/01 |
Fulton v. Moore Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
| 08a0135p.06 2008/04/01 |
Yeschick v. Mineta Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Gary D. Yeschick brought suit against Defendant-Appellee Norman Y. Mineta, the former Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation,1 who oversees operations of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA” or “Agency”), alleging that the FAA failed to rehire him due to his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (“ADEA” or “Act”). |
| 08a0136p.06 2008/04/02 |
USA v. Gray Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
| 08a0137p.06 2008/04/03 |
USA v. Page Northern District of Ohio at Toledo |
| 08a0138p.06 2008/04/03 |
USA v. Simpson Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga |
| 08a0139p.06 2008/04/04 |
Davenport v. Causey Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Officer Samuel E. Causey and the City of Crossville, Tennessee (“defendants”) appeal the decision of the district court denying them qualified immunity and therefore denying them summary judgment. Mr. Ben Davenport, the father of Austin and Kendra Davenport (“plaintiffs”), was shot by Officer Causey during an attempted arrest following a routine traffic stop. Plaintiffs sued,1 claiming that Officer Causey had used excessive force, and that the City of Crossville inadequately trained its officers on the constitutional use of force. Both defendants moved for summary judgment based on the qualified immunity of Officer Causey. The district court denied their motions, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact. Upon our review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we conclude that the force used was constitutionally reasonable and, therefore, that plaintiffs have failed to establish a constitutional violation. We accordingly reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. |
| 08a0140p.06 2008/04/04 |
Jones v. Cincinnati Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati |
| 08a0141p.06 2008/04/04 |
Bishop v. Lucent Tech Inc Southern District of Ohio at Columbus McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an order dismissing retirees’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty against their former employer and its employment benefit plan. Plaintiff retirees allege they were misled into prematurely accepting early retirement. The district court dismissed the claims as time-barred. On appeal, plaintiffs contend the district court failed to construe the complaint liberally in their favor and misapplied the governing statute of limitations. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court. |
| 08a0142p.06 2008/04/04 |
USA v. Jeross Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS
NOTE: The "Filed" date for an unpublished opinion is not always the date on which it is posted.
Please check the opinion for the correct filed date.
| Opinion | Short Title/District |
|---|---|
| 08a0173n.06 | Hodges v. Ford Motor Company Western District of Kentucky at Louisville McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Steve Hodges sued Ford Motor Company and human resources manager Jack Halverson for defamation under Kentucky common law. The district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, concluding that they had a qualified privilege to make the statements at issue. Because Kentucky law permits a jury to infer malice from the mere falsity of a statement, and a finding of malice is sufficient to defeat the qualified privilege at the summary judgment stage, we reverse. |
| 08a0174n.06 | Belknap v. J.B. Hunt Transp Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit |
| 08a0175n.06 | Howard v. RRRB Railroad Retirement Board |
| 08a0176n.06 | USA v. Weldon Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington |
| 08a0177n.06 | USA v. Brown Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington |
| 08a0178n.06 | Cook v. McPherson Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga |
| 08a0179n.06 | Nerghes v. Mukasey Immigration & Naturalization Service |
| 08a0180n.06 | Source Assoc Inc v. Valero Energy Corp Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland |
Comments