6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Apr. 7-11, 2008 (2 Pub. Ky. Decisions)

CA6 Home

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0143p.06 2008/04/07	USA v. Highgate     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0144p.06 2008/04/08	USA v. Luqman     Northern District of Ohio at Akron
08a0145p.06 2008/04/09	USA v. Dial     Middle District of Tennessee at Columbia
08a0146a.06 2008/04/09	Morrison v. Boyd Cnty Bd Ed     Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland COOK, Circuit Judge. This panel heard arguments in the matter before us on July 25, 2007, after which we filed an opinion, Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County, 507 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2007), reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding for further proceedings. Subsequently, the Board of Education of Boyd County (the “Board”) filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Review of the briefs and record counsels us to reconsider our previous holding, and as a result we vacate and amend Sections III and IV of the prior opinion. We now affirm the district court’s decision and set forth our opinion, as amended, below. In this appeal, Timothy Morrison (“Morrison”) challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board. Morrison is a student at Boyd County High School (“BCHS”). He is a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin. He further believes that part of his responsibility as a Christian is to tell others when their conduct does not comport with his understanding of Christian morality. During the 2004–05 academic year, BCHS had a written policy prohibiting students from making stigmatizing or insulting comments regarding another student’s sexual orientation. Wary of potential punishment, Morrison remained silent with respect to his personal beliefs, but challenged in federal court the Board’s right to stifle his speech. After Morrison filed this lawsuit, the Board changed the BCHS policy, but Morrison’s litigation did not end. We must now decide whether Morrison’s claim for nominal damages premised upon a “chill” on his speech during the 2004–05 school year presents a justiciable controversy. We conclude that it does not, and accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Board.
08a0147p.06 2008/04/09	Benitez v. USA     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0148p.06 2008/04/09	Carlisle v. Curtis, Mallet     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. In this interlocutory appeal, the defendants seek to overturn an order of the district court that denied their motion for a stay pending arbitration of the dispute that brought the parties into court. To establish jurisdiction, they rely on Section 16(a)(1) of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1), which permits interlocutory review of orders denying motions to stay under Section 3 of the Act. See 9 U.S.C. § 3. However, none of the defendants involved in this appeal was a signatory to the written arbitration agreement in question. Instead, they based their effort to compel arbitration on a theory of equitable estoppel, a claim that the district court considered and rejected. In the absence of an applicable written agreement to arbitrate, the plaintiffs contend that Section 3 is inapplicable in this action and, consequently, that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal on an interlocutory basis. We agree.
08a0149a.06 2008/04/11	Spisak v. Mitchell     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0150p.06 2008/04/11	Hamilton v. Starcom Mediavest     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Cari Ann Hamilton brought suit against Starcom Mediavest Group, Inc., and Leo Burnett USA, Inc., alleging that they violated ERISA § 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (2005), by terminating her employment in retaliation for exercising her right to claim disability benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that (1) Hamilton failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and alternatively, (2) she failed to make the required showing that defendants’ proffered reason for firing her — the reorganization and hiring of candidates with greater experience — was a pretext to retaliate against her. She now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. We agree with the district court’s second, alternative, finding and hold that Hamilton has failed to establish that defendants’ proffered reason for firing her was mere pretext, and accordingly AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
08a0151p.06 2008/04/11	USA v. Hunt     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0152p.06 2008/04/11	USA v. Rose     Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City
08a0153p.06 2008/04/11	Mahdi v. Bagley     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

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	Pub Date	Short Title/District
08a0186n.06	2008/04/09	USA v. Garner     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0186n.06	2008/04/09	USA v. Carr     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0187n.06	2008/04/09	Palmer v. Haviland     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0188n.06	2008/04/09	Lin v. Mukasey     Immigration & Naturalization Service
08a0189n.06	2008/04/09	Medlen v. Meyers     Northern District of Ohio at Toledo
08a0190n.06	2008/04/09	Rogers v. TN Bd of Regents     Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville
08b0005n.06	2008/04/09	In re: James Krempa v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Marquette
08b0006n.06	2008/04/09	In re: Stardust Yach v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - London
08a0191n.06	2008/04/09	USA v. Pugh     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0192n.06	2008/04/09	Conner v. St Farm Mutl Auto     Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Kathy Conner appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) and the denial of her Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. Conner brought suit against State Farm, alleging that State Farm violated Kentucky’s Civil Rights Act, KY. REV. STAT. § 344.040(1), by discriminating against Conner on the basis of age when State Farm did not accept Conner into its candidate pool for agent positions. State Farm appeals the district court’s grant of $8,860.00 in attorney’s fees to Conner for State Farm’s violation of discovery rules. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
08a0193n.06	2008/04/10	USA v. Letner     Southern District of Ohio at Dayton
08a0194n.06	2008/04/11	Brady v. Potter     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland