| 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 |
