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

Beginning in 2008 Mullins served as Cook County’s Director of Public Affairs and Communications. At that time, contracts requiring the county to spend $25,000 or more had to be approved by its Board of Commissioners. Contracts that required the county to spend less than $25,000 only required the approval of the county’s purchasing agent. The government charged Mullins and co-defendants—vendors to whom the county awarded contracts—with manipulating the system. Mullins helped these vendors obtain payment under county service contracts, without the vendors having to complete any work, and in exchange they paid Mullins $34,748 in bribes. Jurors convicted him of four counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and four counts of bribery, section 666. The Seventh Circuit rejected Mullins’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and claim of prosecutorial misconduct. View "United States v. Mullins" on Justia Law

Michels is a member of the Pipe Line Contractors Association (PLCA), a trade association that negotiates collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) on behalf of its employer members with unions. In 2006, the PLCA and the Union entered into a CBA in “effect until January 31, 2011, and thereafter from year to year unless terminated at the option of either party after sixty (60) days’ notice.” The CBA required contributions to the Central States multiemployer pension plan, 29 U.S.C. 1000(2), (3), (37). In August 2010, the PLCA informed the Union that it intended to terminate the 2006 CBA on January 31, 2011, and begin negotiations for a new agreement; the parties signed eight extensions, the last ending November 15, 2011. Michels contributed to the pension plan throughout those extensions. The parties agreed that the employers would cease making contributions to the plan as of November 15, 2011; that they would make comparable payments to an escrow fund until a “mutually acceptable” fund was designated; and that they would otherwise extend the terms of the 2006 CBA until December 31, 2011. The fund claimed that the obligation to make contributions had not ended. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court holding that this was not sufficient to end the duty to contribute. View "Michels Corp. v. Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Rollins pleaded guilty to selling crack cocaine and was sentenced to 84 months in prison and four years of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit vacated the sentence on limited grounds, noting that the government agreed that the district judge was likely unaware of a change in the recommended term of supervised release brought about by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The court noted that the Supreme Court holding, Johnson v. United States, (2015), that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is vague, does not affect this case. While the residual clause in the career-offender guideline is materially identical to the residual clause in the ACCA, Circuit precedent holds that the Guidelines cannot be challenged as unconstitutionally vague. The court noted that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has begun the process of amending the career-offender guideline to delete the residual clause, bringing the Guidelines into alignment with Johnson. Rollins’s challenge to the application of the career-offender guideline failed on plain-error review. The application notes to section 4B1.2 specifically list possession of a sawed-off shotgun as a qualifying crime of violence. View "United States v. Rollins" on Justia Law

Falor was convicted of two counts of tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. 7201, and sentenced to 74 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In an unrelated case, Jines was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841 and 846, and sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit consolidated the appeals and remanded each case for resentencing; the sentencing courts made no findings in support of the discretionary conditions that they imposed (18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and 3583(d)) and to state reasons for selecting particular conditions. View "United States v. Jines" on Justia Law

Grzegorczyk met with undercover officers posing as gun suppliers and stated that he wanted to have individuals killed because he held them responsible for his divorce and loss of child custody. The agents agreed to kill two individuals for $10,000. At their next meeting, Grzegorczyk got into the agents’ car and directed them toward the residences of his ex-wife and of two intended victims. He showed the agents their photographs and provided descriptions and license plate numbers of their vehicles. Later, Grzegorczyk presented several photographs, explaining that he wanted six people killed. He opened a duffle bag, which contained $45,000 in cash, a 9mm semiautomatic firearm, and two magazines loaded with 40 live rounds of ammunition and gave them $3,000 as a down payment. He stated that he intended to leave for Poland and that the trip would provide his alibi for the murders. Grzegorczyk, pleaded guilty to knowingly using a facility of interstate commerce with intent that a murder be committed, 18 U.S.C. 1958(a), and to knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(A). The court sentenced Grzegorczyk to 211 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court erred in refusing to apply U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual 2X1.1 to reduce his Guidelines calculation and in failing to consider his mental health at the time of the offense. View "United States v. Grzegorczyk" on Justia Law

Dr. Meinders sued United Healthcare in Illinois state court, alleging that in 2013, United sent him and a number of similarly-situated persons an unsolicited “junk fax” advertising United’s services, which violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and amounted to common law conversion. United removed the case to federal court and successfully moved to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(3), claiming that Meinders had entered into a “Provider Agreement” with a United-owned entity, ACN, in 2006, which bound him to arbitrate his “junk fax” claims in Minnesota. Meinders unsuccessfully moved to strike or, in the alternative, for leave to file a sur-reply addressing the assumption theory and declaration. The Seventh Circuit reversed because the district court premised its dismissal order on law and facts to which Meinders did not have a full and fair opportunity to respond. View "Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C. v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc." on Justia Law

A class action filed against Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), a dairy marketing cooperative, Keller’s Creamery, a butter manufacturer, two DFA officers, and two Keller’s officers, alleged a conspiracy to purchase cheese traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in order to help DFA and Keller’s manipulate the price of Class III milk futures. The parties named in the initial complaint reached a settlement (DFA Settlement), which the district court approved in 2014. In 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, adding Schreiber Foods as a defendant and alleging violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and RICO. The district court dismissed the section 2 Sherman Act claims. In 2013, the court granted Schreiber summary judgment on the remaining claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court abused its discretion by limiting discovery to only “high-level” employees and prohibiting the depositions of several employees and in including Schreiber in the DFA Settlement. View "Indriolo Distribs., Inc. v. Schreiber Food, Inc." on Justia Law

Secrease sued his former employer and some of its supervisors, alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2 and 2000e–3(a). The employer moved to dismiss the suit as untimely, arguing that Secrease had tried to make his Title VII claims look timely by attaching to his complaint a charge of discrimination, filed with the EEOC in April 2013, but mismatched to a right-to-sue letter dated March 2014 that addressed a different EEOC charge. Secrease had filed three charges of discrimination with the EEOC. In response, Secrease submitted a document that he claimed was his employment contract and that contained an arbitration clause. After examining the employer’s evidence that the document had been falsified, the district court dismissed his suit with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the fraud finding was not clearly erroneous and the sanction of dismissal was appropriate. View "Secrease, v. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

When she arrived at the Kankakee jail on suspicion of conspiring to commit bank fraud, plaintiff was almost eight months pregnant. She experienced pains 11 days later and was taken to a hospital, where she gave birth. Plaintiff claims that the child suffered serious birth defects because of oxygen deprivation attributable to a displacement of the placenta. She was returned to the jail several days after the birth but remained there for only four days before being transferred to another jail. Two months later, having been shifted among several jails, she pleaded guilty. She was sentenced to 50 months in prison. She filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 two years later, alleging that defendants failed to take a proper medical history when she was first placed in jail; failed to respond to several requests for medical assistance; and failed to react quickly when she went into labor The court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies through the correctional system. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Even if plaintiff had been told upon her return from the hospital that she had only four days to file a grievance, that deadline was unreasonably short for a woman who had just given birth to a severely impaired child. She was effectively prevented from filing a grievance. View "White v. Bukowski" on Justia Law

Bell alleged that her former employer, PNC Bank, failed to pay her overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, and the Illinois Minimum Wage and Wage Payment and Collection Acts, and that the failure was not an isolated incident, but rather part of a PNC policy or practice that affected other employees. Bell claimed that she was evaluated, in part, based on how many new accounts she brought into the bank, and in order to generate new accounts she needed to spend “significant” time outside of her regular work hours visiting prospective clients. Some of the assignments to visit prospective clients came from a PNC vice president who did not work at the Bell’ branch. According to Bell, when she submitted time cards reflecting overtime work, her branch manager and a PNC regional manager told her that “PNC would not permit... overtime for the branch,” and “PNC expected its employees to handle their outside-the-branch work on their own time, without reporting any extra hours that they worked.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed certification of a class of plaintiffs. Many issues remain unanswered and the district court was correct to conclude that a class action would be an appropriate and efficient pathway to resolution. View "Bell v. PNC Bank" on Justia Law