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

A suit on behalf of a 14-year-old, eighth grade boy alleged that the failure of the public school district to prevent sexual abuse by a female teacher violated the student’s rights under Title IX of the federal Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681, and constituted negligent infliction of emotional distress under Wisconsin law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district; claims against the teacher remain pending. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. In a private suit under Title IX, a school district cannot be held liable on the ground of respondeat superior for an employee’s violation absent proof of actual notice and deliberate indifference. That other teachers suspected improper conduct and administrators investigated and accepted the teacher’s denials does not establish knowledge or deliberate indifference. . View "N. R. Doe v. St. Francis Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In 2003, the airline established guidelines that address accommodating employees who, because of disability, can no longer do essential functions of their current jobs, even with reasonable accommodation. The guidelines specify that the transfer process is competitive, so that an employee in need of accommodation will not be automatically placed into a vacant position, but will be given preference over similarly qualified applicants. The EEOC challenged the policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. The district court ruled in favor of the airline. On rehearing, en banc, the Seventh Circuit reversed and held that the ADA does mandate that an employer appoint employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to that employer. The court concluded that contrary precedent did not survive in light of U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002). View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. United Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Filus, a 50-year-old former truck driver, has twice applied for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, claiming that back problems have left him incapable of gainful employment. An administrative law judge concluded that Filus could perform some light work and denied his most recent application. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supports the denial. The ALJ adequately considered Filus’s testimony about the limiting effects of his pain along with his testimony that he regularly completed his daily household activities without any pain medication, not even over-the-counter products.View "Filus v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Beatty injured his back on the job at Olin’s manufacturing plant. At the direction of Olin’s medical department, he was evaluated by his physician, who instructed him to remain off of work for a week. He gave that doctor’s note to the medical department. With the exception of two days of light duty, he did not report for work for the next six weeks. He eventually got a retroactive medical excuse from his doctor, but Olin’s medical department sought an independent examination, anticipating a workers’ compensation claim. In the meantime, a clerk told Olin’s labor-relations manager that Beatty had not been at work for several weeks and had not called in. Olin’s policy requires employees to call in daily if they cannot come to work; failure to call in for three workdays in a row is grounds for termination. Based on Beatty’s noncompliance with the policy, the labor-relations manager terminated his employment. Beatty later filed a workers’ compensation claim, which eventually settled. He then sued for retaliatory discharge. The district court granted summary judgment for Olin. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the manager who made the termination decision was entirely unaware of Beatty’s status vis-á-vis Olin’s medical department. View "Beatty v. Olin Corp." on Justia Law

Couch was employed as a truck driver by B&B, a private company that has Highway Contract Route contracts with the Postal Service. While Couch was making a delivery to a postal facility in Illinois, a U.S. Postal Service employee ran over his foot with a forklift. Two years later, Couch died, allegedly as a result of complications from the injury. After her husband died, plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which provides a cause of action for personal injuries negligently caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1). The district court granted the United States summary judgment, finding that Couch was a “borrowed employee,” so that workers’ compensation would provide Couch’s only remedy against both the borrowing and lending employers. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The private trucking company does not merely “lend employees” to the Postal Service but provides mail transportation and delivery services. The company trains, equips, pays, and supervises its own employees using its own equipment to provide these services. View "Couch v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2005, a Union Pacific train derailed in Oklahoma causing extensive damage to both the railroad and the train’s cargo. Kawasaki, K-Line, and Union Pacific sought damages, alleging that Plano’s steel injection molds were improperly packed, broke through their crate, and fell onto the track. The district court granted Plano summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part. Negligence claims were properly rejected, Plano had no indication that the parties with which it dealt would be unable to properly package and transport its steel molds from China to the United States, nor did Plano have any special knowledge of any unique danger the molds would pose during transit. Plano owed no special duty of care to the carriers. There were, however, unresolved questions of fact material to the determination of one contract claim, based on a bill of lading. It was unclear whether Plano or another arranged the molds’ shipment. View "Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. v. Plano Molding Co." 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

Miller, a Fund beneficiary, fell from a ladder and was injured. He hired attorney Darr on a contingent fee basis to sue the person who was supposed to hold the ladder. The Fund advanced $86,709.73 in medical and disability benefits on the condition that Miller repay from any recovery, without deducting attorneys’ fees. Miller and Darr, signed a subrogation agreement. The lawsuit settled for $500,000. Calculating his fee based on $413,290.27, Darr submitted $57,806.48 to the Fund, stating that he was withholding $28,903.25 as a fee. To avoid jeopardizing Miller’s benefits Darr later submitted the $28,903.25. The Fund indicated that if Darr pursued his claim, it would consider Darr and Miller in breach of Plan terms and in repudiation of the subrogation agreement and would consider terminating coverage and seeking relief under ERISA. Darr sued the Fund in Illinois state court under the common fund doctrine, which permits a party who creates a fund in which others have an interest to obtain reimbursement for litigation expenses incurred in creating that fund. The district court enjoined Darr’s lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit vacated. A federal court may not enjoin “proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments,” 28 U.S.C. 2283.View "Trs. of the Carptenters' Health & Welfare Trust v. Darr" on Justia Law

Swanson hired ISF for steel fabrication work on an Indiana construction project. ISF hired Central to perform steel erection work. ISF and Central signed a subcontract in which Central agreed to procure insurance and to “defend, indemnify and hold harmless.” Central purchased insurance from Scottsdale: a $1 million commercial general liability policy and a $2 million umbrella insurance policy. ISF also carried $1 million in commercial general liability coverage from Amerisure and $7 million in umbrella coverage from National. Colip, a Central employee, was injured at work when he fell 30 feet through a hole in a building roof. Colip settled with ISF for $2.9 million, and the insurers paid according to an agreement that provided that Scottsdale would pay $1 million out of the CGL policy and $950,000 out of the Umbrella policy, while Amerisure would pay the remaining $950,000. Initially, National had no obligation to contribute. The agreement reserved the rights of the parties to seek reimbursement or contribution from each other. Amerisure sued Scottsdale and Central; Scottsdale filed counter- and cross-claims against Amerisure and National. The district court dismissed Central from the litigation and awarded Scottsdale $50,000 from Amerisure and the remaining $900,000 from National. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Sur. Corp." on Justia Law

ProLink and GPS compete, manufacturing and selling GPS-based golf course distance measurement and course management products. GPS owns the 518 patent for a player positioning and distance finding system and sued ProLink for patent infringement. GPS also claimed slander of title and unfair competition, alleging that ProLink falsely represented that it owned an exclusive license under the patent as part of a security agreement with Comerica Bank. This agreement was recorded and allegedly encumbered GPS’s title. ProLink entered into a second agreement, this time representing that it owned outright the 518 security agreement. ProLink was insured under Federal’s commercial general liability insurance policy and requested defense. Federal informed ProLink that it would not defend or indemnify because GPS’s allegations did not satisfy the policy definition of “personal injury;” if they did, the Intellectual Property Laws or Rights Exclusion or Expected or Intended Injury Exclusion would apply. ProLink sought declaratory judgment that Federal breached its duty to defend. The district court found in favor of Federal , holding that the first alleged “personal injury” for which GPS sought damages (2006) occurred outside of the policy period (2007-2008). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The underlying allegations concern only disparagement of property, which is not covered. View "ProLink Holdings Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co." on Justia Law