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

The target witness learned in 2009 that the IRS had opened a file on him, and that an IRS special agent and DOJ tax division prosecutor were assigned to investigate whether he used secret offshore bank accounts to evade income taxes. Two years later, a grand jury issued a subpoena requiring that he produce all records required to be maintained pursuant to 31 C.F.R. 1010.420 relating to foreign financial accounts that he had a financial interest in, or signature authority over. The requested records are required under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. The Government argued that the Required Records Doctrine overrides the Fifth Amendment privilege. The district court quashed the subpoena, concluding that the required records doctrine did not apply because the act of producing the required records was testimonial and would compel the witness to incriminate himself. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding the Doctrine applicable. View "In re: February 2011-1 Grand Jury Subpoena" on Justia Law

Feldman worked the day shift at Olin. Because of fibromyalgia and sleep apnea, his doctors had advised him to work regular day positions, without rotation and overtime. When Olin realigned its workforce, causing Feldman’s position to require rotating shifts, he tried to work under the new regime for a few weeks, but found it impossible. When he presented Olin with a medical restriction, Olin laid him off. It did not place him in a different position, claiming that no positions were available that did not require overtime or flextime. When a straight-day position opened Feldman successfully bid for it. Since then, Feldman has continued working at the plant. Feldman sued, alleging that failure to offer a reasonable accommodation in the form of a straight-day shift, without overtime, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12111 and that, once he returned to work, Olin retaliated against him for having filed administrative complaints. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Feldman can prevail if genuinely disputed points are resolved in his favor: whether he is “disabled” under the ADA, and whether he is “qualified” to work certain positions. Feldman’s retaliation claims were properly dismissed for lack of evidence that adverse employment actions were caused by protected conduct. View "Feldman v. Olin Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were convicted of sex crimes and completed their sentences years ago, but remain in state custody as civil detainees under Illinois’ Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1-99. They filed claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging constitutional problems with the conditions of their confinement. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Commitment under the Act is civil and may be for purposes such as incapacitation and treatment, but not punishment. Generally persons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish. Limitations imposed on their ability to interact with other detainees are justified by security concerns, even if not imposed by treatment professionals. Not allowing detainees to communicate by letter using the facility’s internal mail system does not impinge on a constitutional right or constitute punishment. View "Lane v. Winters" on Justia Law

After the corporate office of Steak N Shake restaurants tried to require one of its franchisees to adopt a new policy for menu pricing and promotions, the franchisee sued Steak N Shake in a declaratory judgment action and later filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in order to stop the implementation of the new policy. The franchise, in operation since 1939, is the oldest in the country and previously had the ability to set its own prices. The district court found that in the absence of an injunction, the franchisee would have its franchises terminated and would suffer irreparable harm and granted a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. There was sufficient evidence to find, as a threshold matter, that the franchise would suffer irreparable harm if it was forced to implement Steak N Shake’s pricing policy. View "Stuller, Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enter., Inc." on Justia Law

More than 50 times, 2002-2005, May, a pipefitter at Chrysler’s plant, was the target of racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic graffiti. Messages included: “Otto Cuban good Jew is a dead Jew,” and “fuck Otto Cuban Jew nigger lover.” May found several death-threat notes in his toolbox and had his bike and car tires punctured. Sugar was poured in the gas tanks of his cars and a dead bird wrapped to look like a Ku Klux Klansman was placed in his work station. May contacted police and the FBI and complained to Chrysler. Human resources met with tradesmen and reminded them that harassment was unacceptable, a procedure was implemented to document the harassment, efforts were made to discover who was at the plant when the incidents likely occurred, and a handwriting analyst was retained. The harasser was never caught. May sued Chrysler in 2002 under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. Only his hostile work environment claim survived summary judgment; a jury awarded $709,000 in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages. May accepted remittitur to $300,000 and the court vacated the award of punitive damages. The Seventh Circuit The district court affirmed on liability, but reversed for reinstatement of the verdict. View "May v. Chrysler Grp., LLC" on Justia Law

Sklena and Sarvey were floor traders in the Five-Year Treasury Note futures pit at the Chicago Board of Trade. Sklena was a “local,” authorized to trade only on his own behalf; Sarvey was a “broker” and could trade for himself and for his customers. On April 2, 2004, the price of the Five-Year Note futures fluctuated wildly. Sarvey and Sklena executed the series of transactions that resulted in criminal prosecution. According to the government, Sklena and Sarvey conspired to sell Sarvey’s customers’ contracts noncompetitively. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a civil complaint alleging that the two “engaged in a series of non-competitive trades” that defrauded customers out of over $2 million. Sarvey died before trial on charges of wire and commodity fraud and noncompetitive futures contract trading. In Sklena’s trial, the district court excluded Sarvey’s deposition as inadmissible hearsay. Sklena was convicted. The Seventh Circuit reversed. There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, but the court erred in excluding the deposition testimony.View "United States v. Sklena" on Justia Law

Convicted of fraud, tax, and money laundering offenses, Swanson failed to appear for his sentencing hearing, but was apprehended as a fugitive in Seattle the next month. His presentence report recommended a four-level U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a) enhancement for his status as an organizer-leader of criminal activity, driving his total offense level to 34 with a 151-188 month guideline range. Swanson’s trial counsel filed 13 pages of objections, including that the evidence revealed there was no criminal organization and to use of the 2001 guidelines. On remand, the court imposed a 151-month sentence. Swanson alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, 28 U.S.C. 2255, claiming that his trial counsel abandoned a poorly developed but winning objection to the enhancement. The district court rejected the petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Trial counsel raised the objection twice and did not withdraw it; his performance was not objectively deficient. Appellate counsel failed to raise the issue on direct appeal. View "Swanson v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, 64 years old, was discharged at age 18 or 19, soon after joining the Navy, because of mental illness. Sexually abused by his parents and others as a child, he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and bipolar disorder. He may be schizophrenic. He has received intensive psychiatric treatment over the last 23 years from the Veterans Administration. Beginning in 2007 a therapist employed at a VA medical center, assigned to treat plaintiff, began a sexual relationship with him. Plaintiff complained to his psychologist and the VA conducted an investigation that resulted in her admitting the sexual relationship. Plaintiff claims that the relationship caused emotional distress and made his mental illnesses worse. The Federal Tort Claims Act makes the federal government liable for acts or omissions by its employees that would be torts in the state in which they occurred had they been committed by someone other than a federal employee, 28 U.S.C. 2674, with exceptions, including one for claims “arising out of . . . battery.” The plaintiff argued that his suit charges not battery by the therapist but negligence by her supervisors in failing to detect and prevent her actions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal. View "Glade v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to make and sell false identification documents, such as documents identifying the bearer as a permanent resident of the U.S., 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(1), (2), (f). His guidelines sentencing range was 37 to 46 months, but the judge sentenced him to 60 months, within the statutory maximum of 15 years. His lawyer filed an Anders brief in which he argued that there is no valid ground for challenging the sentence and asking to be allowed to withdraw. The Seventh Circuit allowed counsel to withdraw and dismissed. Although the departure was by 30 percent, the guideline range for the false-document offense rises in stages as the number of false identification documents increases, but only up to 100. Defendant was estimated to have been responsible for 2800 documents. The court did not “see how imposing a sentence 30 percent above the guidelines range could be thought excessive punishment for 28 times the number of fraudulent documents that triggers the highest guideline sentence, when a 1 percent increase in documents (from 99 to 100) would have increased his maximum guideline sentence by 39 percent.” Defendant also marketed computer software for producing still more counterfeit personal-identification documents. View "United States v. Castillo" on Justia Law

Kimani, a citizen of Kenya, entered the U.S. in 2000 on a visitor’s visa, overstayed, and, three years later, married a citizen. She applied for a visa on his behalf, and he filed a corresponding request for adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent resident. Investigation revealed that in 2003 Kimani had registered to vote and had represented that he was a U.S. citizen. In November 2004 he voted in the general election, violating 18 U.S.C. 611, and 8 U.S.C.1182(a)(10)(D)(i). An immigration judge denied Kimani’s petition and ordered his removal; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Kimani’s problem is not that other people are ahead of him in a queue for visas; it is that he is ineligible for adjustment of status whether or not he has a visa. View "Kimani v. Holder" on Justia Law