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

Melissa Myers, an instructional aide at an elementary school in the Sunman-Dearborn Community Schools, took FMLA leave at the end of the 2017-2018 school year due to grief from her husband's death. Upon returning for the 2018-2019 school year, she exceeded her paid leave days within the first two months. The school principal, Kelly Roth, warned her about her attendance, leading Myers to resign and subsequently sue the school district and Roth for violations of the FMLA, ADA, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that Myers was neither eligible for FMLA leave nor had a qualifying condition in the weeks before her resignation. Additionally, she did not notify the school district of her intent to take statutory leave. The court also rejected her "anticipatory retaliation" theory due to insufficient evidence. The ADA claim failed because Myers did not experience an adverse employment action, and her working conditions were not objectively intolerable to constitute constructive discharge. The equal-protection claim was dismissed for lack of proof of differential treatment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Myers did not meet the eligibility requirements for FMLA leave, lacked evidence of a serious health condition, and failed to provide sufficient notice of intent to take FMLA leave. The court also found no evidence of constructive discharge under the ADA, as her working conditions were not intolerable, and there was no imminent threat of termination. Lastly, the equal-protection claim was dismissed due to the absence of evidence showing that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably. View "Myers v. Sunman-Dearborn Community Schools" on Justia Law

Brian Fenner and Dennis Birkley were convicted of seventeen counts related to a fraud scheme involving the manipulation of Indiana’s mechanic’s lien statute. Fenner, who ran a towing company, and Birkley, who financed the operation, conspired to inflate the value of mechanic’s liens on vehicles and conducted sham auctions to obtain clean titles, which they then sold for profit. The scheme involved towing vehicles from across the country to Indiana, inflating lien values, and holding fake auctions at unreasonable hours to ensure no legitimate buyers attended. Birkley would then falsely claim to have purchased the vehicles at these auctions and apply for clean titles, which extinguished the creditors' interests.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana convicted both defendants on all counts. Fenner and Birkley were sentenced to 70 and 60 months in prison, respectively, and ordered to pay $49,045.84 in restitution. Fenner and Birkley appealed, arguing that the district court made several errors, including allowing improper testimony and violating Fenner’s Sixth Amendment rights by admitting Birkley’s unredacted statement to law enforcement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. The court held that the testimony of the government witnesses was proper and that any potential errors were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also found no plain error in the admission of Birkley’s statement, as it was consistent with Fenner’s defense and did not significantly impact the jury’s verdict. Additionally, the court rejected Birkley’s ex post facto argument and upheld the restitution calculation, finding it supported by the evidence.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of Fenner and Birkley. View "United States v. Birkley" on Justia Law

Dana Curtin was convicted by a jury of attempted sex trafficking of a minor after engaging in a series of text communications with an undercover federal agent posing as the father of a 12-year-old girl. Over ten weeks, Curtin discussed paying for sex with the purported minor, repeatedly acknowledged her age, and arranged to meet at a public location. When Curtin arrived at the meeting spot with cash and items consistent with the planned encounter, law enforcement arrested him. A search of his vehicle and phone revealed evidence of adult pornography and solicitation of prostitutes, but no child sexual abuse material.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois presided over Curtin’s trial. Before trial, Curtin sought to introduce expert testimony from a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Fabien Saleh, to show that Curtin did not have pedophilic disorder and that an interest in adult sex or pornography does not imply an interest in minors. The district court excluded Dr. Saleh’s testimony, finding it would not be helpful to the jury, and allowed Curtin to make related arguments without expert support. The jury found Curtin guilty, and the court sentenced him to 180 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Curtin’s challenges to the exclusion of Dr. Saleh’s testimony. The court held that Curtin had waived his challenge regarding testimony about his lack of pedophilic tendencies by expressly agreeing with the district court’s ruling. As to the remaining expert testimony, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in its exclusion, concluding that the proposed testimony was within the common understanding of jurors and that any error was harmless given the strength of the government’s evidence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Curtin’s conviction. View "United States v. Curtin" on Justia Law

John Wertymer purchased two bottles of Walmart’s Great Value brand honey in June 2022, labeled “Raw Honey” and “Organic Raw Honey.” He claimed he paid a premium for these products due to their perceived nutritional and medicinal benefits. In April 2023, Wertymer sent the honey to a laboratory for testing, which allegedly showed that the honey was not raw. He then filed a diversity suit against Walmart, seeking to represent a nationwide class of purchasers, or alternatively, an Illinois class, alleging violations under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and common law fraudulent misrepresentation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Wertymer’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief for lack of standing, which Wertymer did not appeal. The district court also dismissed the remainder of his claims, finding that the complaint failed to support any claims of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceptive practices.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The court found that Wertymer’s complaint did not plausibly allege that Walmart committed a deceptive act. The court noted that Wertymer’s own allegations and sources indicated that elevated levels of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in honey could result from factors other than heating, such as storage conditions and geographic origin. The court also found that Wertymer’s claim regarding the presence of mannose in the “Organic Raw Honey” was speculative and unsupported by the sources cited in the complaint.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, concluding that Wertymer’s complaint was too speculative and failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act or for common law fraudulent misrepresentation. View "Wertymer v Walmart Inc." on Justia Law

Salvatore Ziccarelli, a former employee of the Cook County Sheriff's Office, used intermittent FMLA leave to manage his PTSD. In 2016, after his condition worsened, he discussed taking block leave with the FMLA coordinator, Wylola Shinnawi, who allegedly warned him against using more FMLA leave. Ziccarelli took one more day of leave and then resigned. He filed a lawsuit alleging FMLA interference and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff's Office on both claims, but the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the interference claim for trial.At trial, the jury awarded Ziccarelli $240,000. The Sheriff's Office moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), arguing that Ziccarelli could not show prejudice from the alleged interference since he took an additional day of FMLA leave after the phone call. The district court granted the motion and conditionally granted a new trial, reasoning that Ziccarelli's post-call leave negated any reasonable inference of prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's entry of judgment as a matter of law, finding that the grounds for the Rule 50(b) motion were not properly presented before the verdict. However, the court affirmed the district court's alternative decision to grant a new trial, agreeing that the evidence did not support a finding of prejudice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Ziccarelli v Dart" on Justia Law

Mary Ann Arnold worked for United Airlines from 1994 to 2020. She alleged age discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge after experiencing changes in her job responsibilities and being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Arnold claimed these actions were due to her age and previous complaints about discrimination and harassment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of United Airlines on Arnold's claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The court dismissed her constructive discharge claim without prejudice, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Arnold did not provide sufficient evidence to show that she suffered adverse employment actions due to age discrimination. The court also found that her retaliation claim failed because the actions taken by United were not materially adverse and were not shown to be causally connected to her complaints. Additionally, the court held that Arnold did not demonstrate a hostile work environment based on age, as the incidents she described were not severe or pervasive enough to meet the legal standard. The court also upheld the dismissal of her constructive discharge claim due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. View "Arnold v. United Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Anthony Sullers, Sr., an African American elevator mechanic, filed a lawsuit against his union, the International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 2 (IUEC), alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation in handling his claim of racial discrimination by his employer, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation (TKE). Sullers and another employee were laid off, and while Sullers was without work, TKE hired a white mechanic. Sullers informed the union of his layoff and his belief that it was racially motivated. The union filed a grievance on his behalf but did not include allegations of racial discrimination. Sullers followed the union's advice to file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of IUEC. The court found that the union had fulfilled its duty of fair representation by obtaining the maximum remedy available for Sullers, including his reinstatement and backpay. The court also noted that Sullers had not requested the union to file a racial discrimination grievance and that the union's actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the union's decision to pursue the grievance as it did, rather than filing a racial discrimination grievance, was within its discretion and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The court also found that Sullers did not suffer harm attributable to the union's actions, as he was reinstated and received backpay. The court concluded that the union had properly represented Sullers and that he had not shown how he would have achieved a better outcome through arbitration. View "Sullers v. International Union Elevator Constructors, Local 2" on Justia Law

Federal agents investigated a drug trafficking conspiracy in Fort Wayne, Indiana, using a confidential source to conduct controlled buys from Zachary Barnes. Barnes coordinated the sales, supplied methamphetamine, and directed his co-conspirator, Marquese Neal, to make deliveries. Neal testified that Barnes paid him in marijuana for his services. Barnes was arrested, and law enforcement found drugs and ammunition in his home.Barnes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possess it with intent to distribute. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana applied a two-level enhancement under section 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines for Barnes' role as a manager or supervisor. This enhancement made Barnes ineligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), resulting in a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Barnes objected to the role enhancement and the denial of safety-valve relief, but the district court overruled his objections, finding Neal's testimony credible and supported by other evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's application of the role enhancement, agreeing that Barnes' actions—recruiting Neal, coordinating logistics, supplying drugs, and directing deliveries—fit the criteria for a manager or supervisor under section 3B1.1(c). The court also upheld the denial of safety-valve relief, as Barnes' supervisory role made him ineligible. The Seventh Circuit found no clear error in the district court's credibility determinations or factual findings and affirmed Barnes' ten-year sentence. View "United States v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Michael Cobbs pleaded guilty in 2017 to attempted Hobbs Act robbery, using or brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The attempted Hobbs Act robbery served as the predicate crime of violence for the firearm charge. Cobbs later sought to vacate his 25-year sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his § 924(c) conviction was invalid based on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Taylor, which held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c).The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied Cobbs’s petition, finding that he had procedurally defaulted his claim by not raising it on direct appeal and that he failed to show cause or actual innocence to excuse the default. The district court also noted that Cobbs admitted to facts supporting a conviction for a completed Hobbs Act robbery, which would still qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Cobbs could not demonstrate actual innocence because he admitted to facts that constituted a completed Hobbs Act robbery, which remains a valid predicate for a § 924(c) conviction. The court concluded that the change in law announced in Taylor did not affect Cobbs’s conviction since his factual admissions supported a completed robbery charge. Therefore, Cobbs’s procedural default was not excused, and his petition to vacate his sentence was properly denied. View "Cobbs v USA" on Justia Law

Santoasha Harris endured five years of sexual harassment at her job with the City of Milwaukee. When she reported the harassment in 2017, the City separated her from the harasser, conducted an investigation, compelled the harasser’s resignation, and restored Harris to her position within a month. Harris sued the City, alleging it knew about the harassment for years, failed to act, and retaliated against her for reporting it. Due to Harris’s bankruptcy filing, her estate was substituted as the plaintiff.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the City. The court concluded that Harris’s Estate had not shown the City unreasonably failed to prevent the harassment or that she suffered a tangible employment action as a consequence of reporting it. The court found no evidence supporting the Title VII and Section 1983 claims against the City.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court agreed that the evidence did not support the claims of quid pro quo harassment, hostile work environment, or retaliation under Title VII. The court found that Harris did not suffer a tangible employment action and that the City acted promptly and reasonably once the harassment was reported. Additionally, the court found no basis for employer liability under Section 1983, as there was no evidence of intentional discrimination by the City. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find for the Estate on its claims against the City. View "Bankruptcy Estate of Harris v City of Milwaukee" on Justia Law