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

In 2008 the EEOC received a charge of discrimination from a woman who claimed Mach Mining had denied her applications for coal mining jobs because of her gender. After investigation, the agency determined there was reasonable cause to believe Mach had discriminated against a class of female job applicants at its Johnston City site and notified the company of its intention to begin informal conciliation. The parties did not reach agreement. In 2011, the EEOC told Mach that further efforts would be futile and filed a complaint two weeks later. Mach asserted failure to conciliate in good faith. The district court certified for interlocutory appeal the question whether an alleged failure to conciliate is subject to judicial review in the form of an implied affirmative defense to an EEOC suit. The Seventh Circuit disagreed with other circuits and responded that it is not. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act directs the agency to try to negotiate an end to an employer’s unlawful employment practices before seeking a judicial remedy, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b), but finding the requirement to create an implied failure-to-conciliate defense would add an unwarranted mechanism by which employers could avoid liability for unlawful discrimination. Such a defense would be contrary to the statutory prohibition on using what was said and done during conciliation “as evidence in a subsequent proceeding.” View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Mach Mining, LLC" on Justia Law

A Caterpillar worker developed epicondylitis, an inflammation of tendons near the elbow. A Department of Labor regulation requires employers to report injuries if “the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition.” The employee worked in a packing department, placing items in boxes for shipping. Caterpillar convened a panel, with three board‐certified specialists in musculoskeletal disorders. Relying on guides issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the American Medical Association that repetitive motion plus force (weight or impact) can cause epicondylitis, and that pronation plus force also can cause the condition, but that repetitive motion alone does not, the panel found that work could not have caused the employee’s epicondylitis. Although Caterpillar presented several witnesses, the ALJ accepted the view of the DOL’s single witness, which ignored epidemiological studies and Caterpillar’s experience. The Seventh Circuit remanded. On remand, the ALJ again held that Caterpillar must pay a penalty for failing to report an injury as work‐related and OSHA declined to review the decision. Caterpillar has filed another petition for judicial review. The Seventh Circuit vacated. Prevailing views, and the data behind them, must be considered; they cannot be ignored on the opinion of any witness. View "Caterpillar Logistics, Inc. v. Soli" on Justia Law

Reynolds, a 62-year-old white male with more than 30 years’ experience with the U.S. General Services Administration, was passed over for a promotion from Building Management Specialist, to Building Manager. Bell, a 32-year-old black employee, got the job over Reynolds and three other candidates, all older than 40. Reynolds sued, alleging age discrimination in violation of the “federal sector” provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 633a; he also claimed race, sex, and retaliation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. The district court entered summary judgment on the retaliation claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Reynolds dropped his claims of racial and sex discrimination. After trial, the district court rejected the age-discrimination claim for lack of evidentiary support and refused to allow Reynolds to amend his complaint. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the district court’s findings defeated the age-discrimination claim regardless of whether a “but-for “requirement or a more lenient “mixed motives” standard applied.View "Reynolds v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Crundwell, Comptroller of Dixon, Illinois since 1983, pleaded guilty to embezzling about $53 million from the city between 1990 and 2012. She used the money to support more than 400 quarter horses and a lavish lifestyle, which she had previously claimed to be the fruit of the horses’ success. During the last six years of her scheme, the embezzlement averaged 28% of the city’s budget. In exchange for her plea, the prosecutor limited the charge to a single count of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343. The crime’s impact on the population of Dixon played a major role in the district court’s decision to sentence her to 235 months’ imprisonment, substantially above the Guideline range of 151 to 188 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court pronounced a substantively reasonable sentence after giving Crundwell full opportunity to present evidence and arguments. The judge considered deterrence and addressed every one of her arguments. That he thought less of her cooperation than Crundwell herself did, and gave a lower weight to her age than she requested does not undermine the sentence’s validity. View "United States v. Crundwell" on Justia Law

Philpot, former Clerk of Lake County, Indiana, took $25,000 in incentive payments from a federally funded child‐support fund (42 U.S.C. 658a(a)) without the required approval of the county fiscal body. The Indiana Department of Child Services disburses those federal funds to the counties, Ind. Code 31‐25‐4‐23(a), which have a relatively free hand in directing the money, although “amounts received as incentive payments may not, without the approval of the county fiscal body, be used to increase or supplement the salary of an elected official.” Philpot had used the funds to provide himself and staff members with bonuses. Convicted of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341, and theft from a federally funded program 18 U.S. 666(a)1A, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, despite claims concerning whether Philpot “knowingly” violated the statute and the fact that Philpot had voluntarily returned the funds. View "United States v. Philpot" on Justia Law

The pro se plaintiff sued her former employer, a private recipient of federal funding, alleging violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, by requiring her to complete certain duties as a dental assistant that she was incapable of performing due to an unspecified disability that limits her strength and mobility, and then firing her because of her disability. The district judge dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Seventh Circuit reversed. A plaintiff under the Rehabilitation Act against a recipient of federal money is not required to exhaust the administrative remedies that the Act provides; an employee or former employee of a private company, such as the plaintiff, is not required Act to even file an administrative charge or complaint. View "Williams v. Milwaukee Health Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Augutis had reconstructive surgery on his foot at a VA hospital. Complications led to amputation of his leg. Augutis claims that the amputation was the result of negligent treatment and filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA denied the claim. Augutis timely requested reconsideration on March 21, 2011. On October 3, the VA informed him that it had not completed reconsideration, but that suit could be filed or additional time could be permitted to allow it to reach a decision. The letter noted that Federal Tort Claims Act claims are governed by both federal and state law and that some state laws may bar a claim or suit. Days later, the VA denied reconsideration. The letter explained that a claim could be presented to a district court within six months, but again noted that state laws might bar suit. Augutis filed suit on April 3, 2012, more than five years after the surgery, but within six months of the VA’s final dismissal. The district court dismissed under Illinois’s statute of repose, 735 ILCS 5/13‐212(a), which requires that a medical malpractice claim be brought within four years of the date of the alleged malpractice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the state limitations period was preempted by the FTCA period. View "Augutis v. Uniited States" on Justia Law

Mach operates an Illinois underground coal mine, using the “longwall” method, which begins with drilling tunnels for ventilation and access. A machine then shears coal from the wall and transports it out of the mine. Mach’s ventilation plan, required by 30 U.S.C. 863(o) involved blowing fresh air into the mine with an exhaust system that pulls out air containing methane, coal dust and particles. There are monitoring points throughout the mine, including at the longwall face and the top of the ventilation shaft. The system was approved for Panels 1 and 2, but not for Panel 3. There is no statutory process for obtaining review of refusal to approve a ventilation plan. Mach notified Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) that it intended to operate without an approved ventilation plan in order to obtain administrative review. MSHA then issued two citations for “technical violations.” An ALJ for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission refused to consider additional evidence tendered by Mach that had not been presented to the district manager during informal negotiations and concluded that refusal to approve the ventilation plan was not arbitrary and capricious. The Commission affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Mach Mining, LLC v. Sec'y of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Admin." on Justia Law

In 2009, a political blog and a Chicago television station began reporting that Illinois State Rep. Froehlich offered his constituents reductions in county property taxes in exchange for political favors. The reports highlighted Satkar Hospitality, reporting that it and its owners donated hotel rooms worth thousands of dollars to Froehlich’s campaign. Satkar Hospitality and Capra appealed their tax assessments for 2007 and 2008 and won reductions, but after the publicity about Rep. Froehlich, both were called back before the Board of Review for new hearings. They claim that in these second hearings, the Board inquired not into the value of their properties but into their relationships with Rep. Froehlich. The Board rescinded the reductions. Satkar and Capra sued the Board and individual members under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district courts concluded that the individual defendants were entitled to absolute quasi‐judicial immunity and the Board itself is not. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, but also held that the damages claims against the Board cannot proceed. They are not cognizable in federal courts, which must abstain in suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging state and local tax collection, at least if an adequate state remedy is available. View "Satkar Hospitality, Inc. v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Cooney divorced; she obtained sole custody of their sons. Later, her ex‐husband petitioned for change of custody. A court‐appointed expert diagnosed Cooney as having Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, in which a person produces or feigns physical or emotional symptoms in another person under her care. A therapist reported to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services that Cooney was abusing the children; DCFS investigated and entered an indicated finding of mental injury. Cooney filed an appeal, during which the ALJ recorded proceedings on microcassettes. Cooney retained a private court‐reporting company to transcribe the hearing as it occurred, creating the “Fishman transcripts.” After the appeal was denied, Cooney sought judicial review. Ultimately, Cooney filed a federal complaint, alleging that the DCFS representatives conspired to deprive her of her due process rights, 42 U.S.C. 1983; she claimed that the DCFS transcripts were “altered” at defendants’ direction, and that this caused delay and expense to convince the court to use the Fishman transcripts. The court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that no reasonable jury could infer conspiracy from the mere existence of discrepancies in the transcripts, and ordered Cooney to show cause why a Rule 38 award should not be entered against her. View "Cooney v. Casady" on Justia Law