Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Ruppel sued CBS in Illinois alleging CBS’s predecessor, Westinghouse, caused the mesothelioma from which he suffers. Westinghouse had included asbestos in the turbines it supplied to the U.S. Navy, and Ruppel was allegedly exposed to it during his Naval service and later when he worked on an aircraft carrier as a civilian. CBS removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, which permits removal of certain suits where a defendant that acted under a federal officer has a colorable federal defense, 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). Ruppel moved to remand and, without allowing response, the district court granted the motion. The district court concluded Ruppel only sued CBS for failing to warn about the dangers of asbestos for which there is no federal defense. The Seventh Circuit reversed. CBS’s relationship with Ruppel arises solely out of CBS’s duties to the Navy. It also has a colorable argument for the government contractor defense, which immunizes government contractors when they supply products with specifications approved by the government. View "Ruppel v. CBS Corp." on Justia Law

Kasten sued his employer, alleging unlawful retaliation for lodging oral complaints regarding the location of time clocks under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3). Kasten complained that the time clocks were placed in locations which caused him to frequently forget to punch in, notifying his supervisors on at least five occasions that the location away from the donning and doffing area was “illegal.” Kasten failed to punch in on several occasions, violating company policy. He was suspended and ultimately terminated. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on the ground that oral complaints do not constitute protected activity under the FLSA; the Seventh Circuit affirmed. On certiorari, the Supreme Court vacated, holding that oral complaints may qualify as protected activity where they provide “fair notice” that an employee is asserting rights under the FLSA. On remand, the district court concluded that Kasten’s oral complaints did in fact provide “fair notice,” but concluded that Kasten had failed to create a dispute of material fact regarding causation and granted the employer summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that Kasten has provided evidence which would support a jury inference of retaliation. View "Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp." on Justia Law

Over the course of two days in late 2009, Taylor went on a shooting spree in Aurora, Illinois. He fired his black 9 millimeter Beretta semiautomatic pistol on residential streets, at family homes, and at a moving vehicle, all in an apparent attempt to retaliate against rival gang members. Taylor was arrested and charged with possessing a firearm after having previously been convicted of a felony. Before his jury trial, Taylor unsuccessfully moved to exclude evidence of two other guns that officers had recovered at the scene of his arrest. The jury found Taylor guilty of violating the felon-in-possession statute. Based in part on the violent circumstances of Taylor’s crime and his extensive criminal history, the district court imposed a sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment, nearly 13 years above his advisory guideline range. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the denial of the motion and the sentence and rejecting a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Home Depot and a personnel manager, claiming that the company had refused to hire him because of his national origin, Albanian, in violation of Title VII. Defendants claim that a manager called plaintiff on August 27, 2007, and told him he wouldn’t be hired. The plaintiff filed discrimination complaints with the EEOC and its Wisconsin counterpart on June 26, 2008, 304 days later. Title VII provides that the 300-day period to file an administrative complaint begins to run when the complainant is informed of the allegedly unlawful employment practice, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(1). Plaintiff denied that he had received such a call that day. The district judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, distinguishing between the limitations period and the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Title VII does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies. It states that “a charge . . . shall be filed . . . within three hundred days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), but not that an administrative proceeding shall have been conducted before the employee can file suit. View "Begolli v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Huber operated a Ponzi scheme in which 118 investors lost a total of $22.6 million. He told investors, mainly friends and acquaintances, who trusted him, that he administered investment funds, using a computer trading model. He pleaded guilty to mail fraud and related crimes, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. A receiver appointed to marshal and distribute remaining assets found $7 million, roughly 24 percent of the total amount and has distributed all but about $1 million to the 118 investors. Instead of distributing recovered assets pro rata among the investors, the receiver made a distinction, counting withdrawals made before discovery of the scheme as partial compensation (“rising tide” method). Those investors argue that he should have used the “net loss” method, under which each investor would receive a sixth of his loss. The district court approved the method of distribution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the investors did not withdraw “their money,” but withdrew portions of the commingled assets in the Ponzi schemer’s funds. View "Merel v. Duff" on Justia Law

An officer responding to a report of gunshots, saw a Hispanic male running toward a building. A witness told the officer that her cousin had been shot by a black male and was hiding in an apartment in that building. Officers approached the apartment. Delgado, the Hispanic male, and the shooting victim, with a visible graze wound, emerged from the apartment. Officers detained Delgado and, without a warrant, searched his apartment, finding firearms. Delgado was indicted as a felon in possession and for possessing an unregistered firearm. The district court agreed that the search was not justified by exigent circumstances, but found that it was a valid protective sweep and denied a motion to suppress. Delgado entered a conditional plea. The government conceded that the search was not a valid protective sweep, but argued that a reasonable officer could have believed that the shooter was in the apartment. The Seventh Circuit vacated, holding that, absent any indication that anyone was in the apartment or had been subjected to violence inside the apartment, the mere fact that the shooter was at large was not enough for a reasonable officer to believe that the shooter was in the apartment. View "United States v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Northwestern sold an annuity to approximately 36,000 persons: about 3,000 live in Wisconsin. In 1985 Northwestern changed its calculation of the annual dividend. In a 2001 suit by annuitants in Wisconsin state court, the judge declined to certify the class, ruling that a claim for damages creates individual issues that make class treatment imprudent, and a national class is not manageable given differences in applicable state laws. A second suit initially proposed a class limited to Wisconsin annuitants and sought only a declaratory judgment that the 1985 change is invalid. The suit was certified as a class action and the judge declared that Northwestern violated the contracts, breached fiduciary duties, and should pay substantial damages. The class then amended to seek damages for annuitants in every state. Contending that the amendment implicated the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), 1453, Northwestern filed notice of removal. The district court remanded the suit. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, reasoning that the doctrine of law of the case does not apply on appeal and that it will review the state trial court decision on the merits as it would, had the identical decision been made initially by the federal district judge. View "Laplant v. NW Mut. Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Foster sold crack cocaine to a paid confidential informant through a series of controlled buys facilitated by federal agent and was charged with several counts of knowingly and intentionally distributing cocaine base. He was convicted on four separate counts. The district court sentenced him to 240 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court improperly admitted evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause and improperly rejected his request for a missing witness instruction and erred by not applying the Fair Sentencing Act in the imposition of his sentence. View "Unted States v. Foster" on Justia Law

Zheng, born in1984 in the People’s Republic of China, arrived in the U.S. illegally in 2001. After receiving a Notice to Appear, she filed applications for political asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming persecution because of her practice of Falun Gong. An IJ rejected Zheng’s applications because her testimony was “rather inconsistent and almost completely unsubstantiated.” The Board affirmed and the Seventh Circuit denied an appeal. Zheng remained in the U.S. and, in 2010, married Jiang, with whom she has two children. In 2011, Zheng sought to reopen proceedings with the Board, based on the birth of her two children and increased enforcement of China’s family planning policy. The Department of Homeland Security opposed Zheng’s motion, arguing that it was not filed within 90 days of entry of a final administrative order of removal (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)) and was based on changed personal circumstances rather than a change in country conditions. The Board denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit denied review. View "Zheng v. Holder" on Justia Law

Husband and wife, Pakistani citizens, entered the U.S. in 2006 and applied for asylum several months later. In 1984, wife had left her native India for an arranged marriage. Her new hometown of Karachi was full of violence, crime, and corruption spurred by political and ethnic rivalries. Wife and her first husband began supporting the MQM party in 1988. By 1991, she became disillusioned by the party’s involvement in illegal activities. She began an extramarital romantic relationship with her current husband, divorced and remarried, and began receiving threats from MQM members. She never reported the threats because she feared losing her job and the MQM controlled the police. The couple survived three targeted incidents of violence between 2002 and 2005. The immigration judge noted their “consistent credible testimony” but denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. He concluded that only the kidnapping incident rose to the level of persecution but did not occur “on account of” their political opinion and that they had not shown that the government of Pakistan was unwilling or unable to protect them. The Board dismissed their appeal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Shaikh v. Holder" on Justia Law