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

Plaintiffs were riding in the family’s 1978 station wagon in 2007, in heavy rain with limited visibility. Williams, a recently hired substitute letter carrier for the Postal Service, was in a postal truck, parallel parked on the side of the road with the front of the truck sticking out. Williams had visited a friend and, in violation of USPS rules, was away from his designated route. The vehicles collided, damaging the station wagon. Plaintiffs claim that Williams refused to call police and left the scene, afraid of losing his job. Williams first denied involvement, then resigned. After exhausting administrative remedies, plaintiffs sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking $45 million. They did not offer any expert testimony on the cause of the collision. Williams did not appear at trial, but in a deposition stated that his vehicle was stationary at the time of the collision. Asked to reconcile this a with the fact that the back end of the car came into contact with the postal truck, Williams responded that he had no explanation and that it was “mystical.” The district court declined to find that Williams breached his duty of ordinary care. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Furry v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an active genealogist and animal rights activist, claimed that her name had commercial value and that search engines generated revenue as a result of internet searches of her name. She specifically alleges that various features of Google’s search engine violate her right of publicity by using her name to trigger sponsored links, ads, and related searches to medications, including Levitra, Cialis, and Viagra, all of which are trademarks of nationally advertised oral treatments for male erectile dysfunction. The district court dismissed her suit alleging common law misappropriation and violation of the state right-of-privacy law, Wis. Stat. 995.50(2)(b). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, citing the public interest and incidental use exceptions. View "Stayart v. Google Inc." on Justia Law

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed this employment discrimination case on behalf of Shepherd, a former sales clerk at AutoZone, alleging that AutoZone had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shepherd had a back injury that was aggravated by mopping floors, and he claimed that AutoZone required him to mop floors despite his requests for relief. The EEOC alleged that AutoZone had failed to accommodate Shepherd’s disability. The magistrate judge initially granted AutoZone summary judgment on the accommodation claim. The Seventh Circuit reversed. On remand, a jury returned a verdict in Shepherd’s favor. The judge then approved $100,000 in compensatory damages, $200,000 in punitive damages, $115,000 in back pay, an injunction on AutoZone’s anti-discrimination practices, and the EEOC’s motion to vacate a prior award of costs to AutoZone from the first trial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, but remanded the injunction for imposition of a reasonable time limit. The award of compensatory damages was not excessive when compared to Shepherd’s pain and suffering; the jury heard sufficient evidence of AutoZone’s reckless indifference to Shepherd’s federal employment rights and because the punitive damages award was not grossly excessive under the Due Process Clause. View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Autozone, Inc." on Justia Law

James has been an employee of Hyatt Regency Chicago since 1985. In 2007, James took a leave of absence due to an eye injury that occurred outside of work. James filed suit in 2009 claiming that Hyatt violated his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.12101. During discovery, the district court denied James’ motions to compel and awarded Hyatt a portion of attorney’s fees it expended responding to motions. The court subsequently granted Hyatt summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. In light of the limitations imposed by his doctors, Hyatt did not violate the FMLA or the ADA in refusing to allow James to return to work for “light duty” before doctors released him to perform functions essential to his position. James used discovery as a weapon, rather than as a tool to gather evidence. View "James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago" on Justia Law

The Hancock Center in Chicago is managed by Shorenstein (several related companies). Shorenstein hired an architectural firm, MCA, to design and oversee renovation of windows and exterior walls; MCA hired a general contractor. In 2002, a scaffold fell from the 42nd floor in a high wind and killed three people in cars, severely injuring several others. Shorenstein settled with plaintiffs in 2006 for a total of $8.7 million. MCA’s contract with Shorenstein had required MCA to obtain liability insurance covering the owner, Shorenstein, and any other party specified by the owner. MCA obtained the required insurance policy from AMICO, covering “any person or organization to whom [MCA is] obligated by virtue of a written contract.” There was a dispute concerning which Shorenstein entities were covered. Shorenstein was awarded $959,866.02 by the district court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the court erred in apportioning the award among the Shorenstein entities. The court rejected AMICO’s arguments that the claim was barred by an exclusion of coverage for injuries “due to rendering or failure to render any professional service” by an insured and that Shorenstein gave up its right to indemnity by AMICO by asking its other insurer for indemnification. View "Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Since 2006 Ray has experienced pain in his shoulder. He contends that the pain stems from an injury and that an MRI scan would point the way toward successful treatment; Shah, Ray’s treating physician at the correctional center, believes that the pain stems from arthritis and that a scan would not help in diagnosis and treatment. The district court rejected Ray’s suit under 42 U.S.C.1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that Ray has been examined often, x-rays have been taken, and physicians have prescribed painkillers; staff also has arranged for Ray to be assigned a lower bunk. Because Ray’s claim fails the objective component of cruel-and-unusual-punishments analysis, his contention that Dr. Shah displayed subjective antipathy is irrelevant. View "Ray v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

Fitzgerald had not eaten all day, had not slept in three day, and drank some wine. Feeling “down,” Fitzgerald attempted to call a hospital help line, but instead dialed a police non-emergency number. She proceeded to talk to the desk officer. Though Fitzgerald denied suicidal thought or intention, the desk officer described a “very depressed,” possibly suicidal, intoxicated female caller. As officers approached the building, Fitzgerald abruptly hung up on the desk officer. This information was relayed to the officers. Upon entering the apartment, officers and paramedics found Fitzgerald unsteady on her feet and slurring her words. For 30 minutes, they talked to her. She denied wanting to harm herself, but admitted being upset and told them that she had been taking anti-depressants. They, along with Fitzgerald, unsuccessfully attempted to contact Fitzgerald’s friends. The decision was made to take Fitzgerald to the hospital. Fitzgerald would not go voluntarily. She screamed and physically resisted. Eventually, the officers and paramedics lifted Fitzgerald onto the stretcher and handcuffed her right hand to the stretcher. She continued to resist, eventually breaking bones in her wrist. Surgical repair was necessary. The district court dismissed her 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Fitzgerald v. Santoro" on Justia Law

Devbrow entered the Indiana prison system in 2000. During intake, he told the medical staff that he had prostate problems and would need to be tested for prostate cancer within two to four years. In 2004 a test revealed an elevated PSA, but the medical staff did not order a prostate biopsy for more than a year. In a biopsy six months later, Devbrow was diagnosed with prostate cancer that had spread to his spine; treatment options were severely limited. Devbrow sued prison doctors and a nurse practitioner under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court entered judgment for the defendants based on the two-year statute of limitations, construing the claim as a constitutional violation that in April 2005 when the biopsy was ordered. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The statute of limitations for a section 1983 deliberate-indifference claim does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows of his injury and its cause. Devbrow did not know of his injury when the defendants ordered a biopsy; he discovered it six months later when he learned he had cancer that might have been diagnosed and treated earlier. View "Devbrow v. Kalu" on Justia Law

Roddy, born in 1964, suffers from several serious medical problems, including severe lower back pain attributable to degenerative disc disease. When her pain became unbearable, she stopped working and applied for disability insurance benefits. She was unsuccessful before the Social Security Administration. An administrative law judge found that there were jobs in the national economy within her capabilities, although she no longer could perform her old job as a shift manager at a Taco Bell restaurant. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded. The ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of a physician and improperly considered Roddy’s testimony about her ability to do housework. View "Roddy v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Bogie attended a comedy show featuring Joan Rivers, who told a joke about Helen Keller, offending an audience member who had a deaf son. The audience member heckled Rivers; their brief exchange was filmed and was part of the documentary. When Rivers exited to a backstage area, closed to the public, Bogie gained entry and expressed frustration with the heckler and sympathy for Rivers. Rivers responded with an expression of sympathy for the heckler. The film shows at least three others present. The interaction was filmed and included in the documentary entitled Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work. Bogie’s conversation lasted 16 seconds in the film’s 82 minutes, 0.3 percent of the entire film. The documentary was distributed nationwide. Bogie alleges that she was portrayed in the film as having approved of condescending and disparaging remarks by Rivers toward Wisconsin, its citizens, and the heckler. Bogie’s complaint alleged that her privacy was invaded by the distribution of the film and that the film misappropriated her image for commercial purposes without her consent. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the footage was “incidental,” newsworthy, and not used for advertising. View "Bogie v. Rosenberg" on Justia Law