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

A group of individuals in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) filed a lawsuit in 2007, alleging inadequate mental healthcare. The case developed into a class action, and in 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement that required IDOC to meet specific mental-health treatment benchmarks. The agreement included a provision for $1.9 million in attorney’s fees to be paid to plaintiffs’ counsel if the court granted relief for violations of the agreement. In 2018, the district court found IDOC in breach and issued an injunction, triggering the fee provision. While the defendants appealed, the parties entered into further agreements, resulting in the $1.9 million being paid to plaintiffs’ counsel.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois later extended its enforcement jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, but after the expiration of that jurisdiction, the court returned the case to its active docket. The parties continued to litigate, with plaintiffs filing amended complaints and defendants moving to dismiss. More than a year after resuming active litigation, the district court raised concerns about its subject-matter jurisdiction, ultimately concluding that its jurisdiction over the underlying claims ended when its enforcement jurisdiction over the settlement agreement expired. The court dismissed all claims and denied the defendants’ motion to recover the $1.9 million in attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that, under the parties’ agreements, the payment of $1.9 million in attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ counsel was proper and did not need to be returned, even after the district court’s injunction was vacated. The court also vacated the district court’s dismissal of the underlying claims, remanding for the district court to determine whether the settlement agreement moots those claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to recover the attorney’s fees. View "Daniels v. Jones" on Justia Law

Indiana enacted a statute making it a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly or intentionally approach within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer who is lawfully engaged in official duties, after being ordered by the officer to stop approaching. Several media organizations and news outlets challenged this law, arguing that it is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment because it allows police officers too much discretion in deciding when to issue a do-not-approach order, potentially leading to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The plaintiffs asserted that the law chills their newsgathering activities, as journalists often need to approach police officers in public spaces to report on events.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the State’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injury in fact. The district court then granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness claim, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored an injunction. The court did not address the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. The State appealed the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the law was not unconstitutionally vague and that the plaintiffs lacked standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was not moot, even though a second, narrower buffer law had been enacted. The court found that the original buffer law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave law enforcement officers unfettered discretion to decide when to issue a do-not-approach order, thus encouraging arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The court remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court precedent limiting universal injunctions. View "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita" on Justia Law

Monica Richards, a long-time employee in her early fifties, applied for a promotion at Eli Lilly & Company after serving as an interim District Sales Manager. The promotion was instead awarded to a younger, less experienced candidate. Richards filed suit in federal court, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Massachusetts law. She sought to proceed collectively on behalf of all Eli Lilly employees aged 40 or older who were denied promotions since February 2022, claiming a companywide bias favoring “Early Career Professionals” over older employees.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Richards moved for conditional certification of a collective action and requested that notice be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The parties disputed the appropriate standard for issuing such notice. The district court applied the Lusardi “modest factual showing” standard, declined to consider the employer’s opposing evidence, and granted conditional certification, agreeing to send notice. Recognizing uncertainty in the law, the district court certified the question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case to clarify the standard for issuing notice in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and ADEA collective actions. The court held that, before notice may issue, plaintiffs must present evidence raising a material factual dispute as to whether the proposed collective is similarly situated. Both parties’ evidence must be considered, and the district court retains discretion to manage the process, including authorizing limited discovery or narrowing the scope of notice. The court rejected both the lenient Lusardi standard and heightened standards requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence or a strong likelihood of similarity. The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings under the clarified standard. View "Richards v. Eli Lilly & Company" on Justia Law

In a suburban shopping center parking lot on July 1, 2016, Michael Cokes, Isaiah Stevenson, and Ronald Arrington waited in a car while Jimmie Malone robbed a restaurant manager. After the robbery, the men drove away with Malone, who later took over as the driver. When Illinois state troopers stopped the car, the men refused to exit, and Malone sped off, leading to a high-speed chase. During the chase, Chicago Police Officer Dean Ewing, driving an unmarked car, collided with the Pontiac, resulting in serious injuries to Cokes, Stevenson, and the officers in Ewing’s car, and the deaths of Malone and Arrington.The plaintiffs, including Arrington’s estate, sued the City of Chicago and Officer Ewing, alleging various torts related to the collision. After a nine-day trial, a jury found in favor of the defendants on all claims. The plaintiffs then moved for a new trial, challenging the district court’s decisions on affirmative defenses, jury instructions, and the admissibility of evidence. The district court denied these motions, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court found no legal error or abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of the affirmative defenses, jury instructions, and evidentiary rulings. Specifically, the court upheld the district court’s decisions to allow the defendants to plead a joint enterprise theory of contributory negligence, to admit testimony about Arrington’s conduct under Federal Rule of Evidence 601 rather than the Illinois Dead Man’s Act, and to exclude the COPA report under Rule 403. The appellate court concluded that any potential errors did not substantially affect the jury’s verdict. View "Arrington v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Chosen Consulting, LLC, doing business as Chosen Healthcare, and other related entities (collectively "Chosen") filed a lawsuit against the Town Council of Highland, Indiana, the Highland Municipal Plan Commission, and the Town of Highland, Indiana (collectively "the Town"). Chosen alleged that the Town discriminated against patients with addiction-related ailments by refusing to provide a letter stating that Chosen’s proposed use of its property complies with local zoning requirements. Chosen claimed this discrimination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, seeking compensatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted summary judgment to the Town. The district court held that Chosen's claim for injunctive relief under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act was not ripe for adjudication because Chosen had not obtained a final decision from the local zoning authorities. The court indicated that Chosen needed to pursue its request for zoning approval through the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and, if necessary, appeal any final decision entered by the BZA to the state courts before seeking an injunction in federal court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Seventh Circuit held that Chosen's claim for injunctive relief was not ripe because Chosen had not satisfied the finality requirement set forth in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. The court emphasized that Chosen needed to follow the local zoning procedures, including applying for a use variance or seeking a declaratory judgment in state court, to obtain a final decision from the Town. Until Chosen completed these steps, the dispute was not ripe for federal court review. View "Chosen Consulting, LLC v Town Council of Highland" on Justia Law

Christian Arnold retained Binder & Binder in April 2018 to represent him in a claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. After the Commissioner of Social Security denied his claim, Arnold appealed to the district court, which remanded the case to the agency. An administrative law judge later determined Arnold was entitled to $160,797.10 in past-due benefits. Binder then moved for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), seeking twenty-five percent of the retroactive benefits, amounting to $40,199.27. The district court awarded Binder $16,920, reducing the fee based on an effective hourly rate of $600.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois initially awarded Binder $16,920, despite the contingency fee agreement. Binder appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by not anchoring its reasonableness analysis on the contingency fee agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court again awarded $16,920, maintaining that the contingency fee should be reduced to reflect a more reasonable effective hourly rate. Binder appealed once more.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court abused its discretion by inadequately explaining its decision to reduce Binder’s fees. The appellate court emphasized that the district court must begin with the contingency fee agreement and consider relevant factors, such as the plaintiff’s satisfaction and the attorney’s expertise. The appellate court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to order the Social Security Administration to remit attorneys’ fees at Binder’s requested amount of $34,199.27. View "Arnold v. Bisignano" on Justia Law

Donald Thorpe sought disability benefits, claiming that his health issues rendered him unable to work. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied his claim, relying on the testimony of a vocational expert. Thorpe appealed to the district court, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision, stating that Thorpe forfeited any challenge to the expert testimony by failing to object timely and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.The district court found that Thorpe did not object to the vocational expert’s testimony during the hearing or in a post-hearing brief, thus forfeiting his right to challenge it. The court also determined that the ALJ’s decision was based on substantial evidence, including the expert’s testimony, which was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and supported by the expert’s qualifications and experience.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court. The court held that Thorpe forfeited his ability to challenge the expert’s testimony by not objecting during the hearing. The court also found that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, as the expert’s testimony had sufficient indicia of reliability, including consistency with the DOT and the expert’s qualifications.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the ALJ did not err in relying on the vocational expert’s testimony to determine that Thorpe was not disabled and could find other gainful employment. View "Thorpe v Bisignano" on Justia Law

Donna Christensen, a twenty-year-old inmate at Vilas County Jail, died by suicide after twenty-five days in confinement. She had a history of substance abuse and mental illness and had previously reported suicidal thoughts and hallucinations. During her incarceration, she exhibited withdrawal symptoms and had an altercation with jail staff, leading to her placement on suicide watch. Despite her initial suicidal ideations, she was removed from suicide watch after a brief assessment by a social worker. She was later placed in solitary confinement, where she remained until her death.The Christensens, Donna's parents, sued Vilas County, the jail's medical service provider, and various employees, alleging that Donna's death resulted from inadequate medical treatment, excessive force, and due process violations. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling against the Christensens. The court also denied the Christensens' requests to amend their complaint and extend deadlines for additional discovery.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 the Christensens failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to Donna's serious medical condition under the Eighth Amendment. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the defendants' conduct and concluded that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the Christensens. The court also upheld the district court's denial of the Christensens' motions for additional discovery and to amend their complaint, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's case management decisions. View "Christensen v Weiss" on Justia Law

Edward Snukis was stopped by Officers Matthew Taylor and Trevor Koontz after a report of an impaired man refusing to leave a parking lot. The encounter escalated when Snukis resisted commands and struck Officer Koontz. Officer Taylor tased Snukis twice, and both officers pinned him to the ground, with Taylor striking Snukis in the head six times. After securing Snukis in handcuffs, the officers noticed he had lost consciousness and provided emergency assistance, but Snukis died later that evening. Snukis’s children, as co-administrators of his estate, sued the officers and the City of Evansville under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The estate appealed the decision, focusing on claims against the officers for excessive force, failure to intervene, and failure to render medical aid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the officers' use of force was reasonable given Snukis’s resistance and the threat he posed. The court found that Officer Taylor’s use of the taser and subsequent strikes were justified due to Snukis’s active resistance. The court also determined that the officers provided prompt and appropriate medical care once Snukis lost consciousness. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers. View "Snukis v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Christopher Pable, a software engineer with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), discovered a cybersecurity vulnerability in the BusTime system, which was developed by Clever Devices, Ltd. Pable reported the vulnerability to his supervisor, Mike Haynes, who tested it on another city's transit system. Clever Devices, which had a significant contract with the CTA, alerted the CTA about the incident, leading to the termination of Pable and Haynes. Pable then sued the CTA and Clever Devices under the National Transit Systems Security Act, alleging retaliation for whistleblowing.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Pable's complaint during the discovery phase, citing the deletion of evidence and misconduct by Pable's attorney, Timothy Duffy. The court also imposed monetary sanctions on both Pable and Duffy. The court found that Pable and Duffy had failed to preserve relevant electronically stored information (ESI) and had made misrepresentations during the discovery process.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 the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Pable's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) due to the intentional spoliation of evidence. The court also upheld the monetary sanctions imposed under Rule 37(e), Rule 37(a)(5), and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, finding that Duffy's conduct unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings. The appellate court declined to impose additional sanctions on appeal, concluding that the appeal was substantially justified. View "Christopher Pable v CTA" on Justia Law