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

The company filed an objection to a flyer, distributed on the eve of an election. The hearing officer found that the flyer contained a misrepresentation of the law, but did not interfere with the employeesâ ability to make a free choice and recommended that the Board certify the union. After the union was certified it filed a claim under 29 U.S.C. 158 (a). The Board issued an order requiring the company to bargain. The Seventh Circuit granted an order of enforcement. The board correctly certified the union; findings that the flyer was not a forgery and that its misleading language did not justify setting aside the election were supported by substantial evidence.

In 1995 the city gave an examination for positions in its fire department and rated applicants on a scale between highly qualified and not qualified, based on scores. "Qualified" applicants were told that they were unlikely to be hired. From 1996 through 2001, the city hired random batches from the well-qualified pool. In 1997 a person in the qualified pool filed a charge of discrimination, claiming disparate impact on African-American applicants (42 U.S.C. 2000(e)). After receiving right-to-sue letters from the EEOC, applicants filed a class action in 1998. After a trial, the court rejected a business necessity defense and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. On remand, after the Supreme Court held that most of the claims were timely, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The city conceded that the cut-off score in the ranking system had a disparate impact, so each "batch" hiring had a similar impact. While hiring according to a list, perhaps hiring highest scorers first, might have served a business necessity, the random selection of batches amounted to repeated "use" of a tool that created disparate impact.

Plaintiff, assigned to a bridge crew in 2002, informed his supervisor of his fear of heights. He performed most job functions and the crew accommodated him by swapping assignments. In 2006 he was required to work in a lift bucket, unsecured by a safety line. Days later, required to lean over a bridge beam, he suffered a panic attack and was transported by ambulance; it was the only time the plaintiff was unable to complete an assignment. He was placed on non-occupational disability leave. A doctor described him as unable to work in an exposed, extreme position above 20-25 feet. The department denied an accommodation that was supported by psychiatric reports. The plaintiff stated that he would like to knock his supervisor's teeth out; the department discharged him, but, after arbitration, returned him to work. The district court dismissed claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12112. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The plaintiff offered sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the department regarded him as precluded from a substantial class of jobs; that the tasks he was unable to perform were not essential to the job and that the requested accommodation was reasonable in light of the crew history of job swapping; and that the reason for discharge was pretextual.

The union represents housekeepers at a hotel owned by the village. After the union staged a mock funeral procession on the premises, police blocked efforts to stage a second protest on August 31, 2009. After the union filed suit, it was denied permission to distribute pamphlets at the entry to the hotel (November incident). The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the village. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the record clearly indicated that the union had dropped its claims with respect to the August 31 demonstration. At the time of the summary judgment motion, the union had not attempted to file a supplementary pleading to cover the November incident.

Former captains from the Illinois Department of Corrections sued state and union officials, alleging that the defendants unlawfully punished them for seeking to organize with a rival union. The district court entered summary for the defendants, including a decision that the governor was protected by immunity. The governor's line-item veto of funding for captains' positions was legislative in nature and, therefore, protected by immunity and the plaintiffs failed to tie the governor to any allegedly-retaliatory actions before or after the veto. The decision to eliminate the middle management position at issue was a policy decision, unlike hiring or firing a particular individual, regardless of the subsequent creation of a new, similar position. The captains did not show how deposing the governor or more extensive deposition of the deputy chief of staff would lead to relevant evidence on the immunity issue. That two unions were competing to represent the captains did not establish a conspiracy between one of the unions and the administration with respect to determining the seniority of captains who took positions as corrections officers after their positions were eliminated.

The EEOC conducted a preliminary investigation, following a complaint filed by an African-American salesman who was fired after eight months, and discovered possible pattern of discrimination in hiring as well as in treatment of employees. The company refused to comply with an EEOC subpoena for information about hiring practices. The district court entered an order enforcing the subpoena. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the requested material is relevant to the investigation and to the EEOC's authority and would not impose an undue burden on the company.

The plaintiff stopped working in November, 2005, due to a variety of ailments, and filed a disability claim in August, 2007. The claim was denied in September. The plaintiff's appeal, received in April, 2008, 11 days after the stated 180-day deadline, was denied. She filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132. A magistrate upheld the denial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The plan has a clear deadline; the plaintiff was not denied meaningful access to review procedures and did not allege that pursuing administrative remedies would be futile. The court rejected a "substantial compliance" argument, noting that the plaintiff did not offer an explanation for the late filing. The Plan was not required to show prejudice as a result of the delay to justify rejecting the claim. Letters sent by the plaintiff could not reasonably be construed as notice of appeal. The Plan has procedures to minimize conflicts of interest and its refusal to consider the appeal was not arbitrary.

A former high school teacher and union president was fired for allegedly viewing pornography on school computers. The district court rejected claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, based on an assertion that the firing was retaliation for union activity. Before terminating the teacher's employment, the school district held an open hearing at which the teacher was allowed to present evidence and witnesses. He did not refute the charges, but only issued an apology; he has had all of the process he is due. With respect to First Amendment retaliation claims, the court stated that the relationship between the union and the district was "contentious, combative, and miserable," but that the district had an independent, legitimate reason for the termination.

A recent retiree (employee) unsuccessfully tried to enroll her adult dependent child in the medical plan. The district court found the plan administrator's decision to be in violation of ERISA and imposed penalties. The Seventh Circuit vacated in part and remanded to allow the plan administrator to make a decision under the correct contract language. The denial was incorrectly based on a version of the plan in effect at the time of application, rather than that in effect when the employee's ability to comply with a condition precedent to enrollment expired, but the language of the earlier plan was ambiguous and the evidence of the employee's compliance was unclear. The court affirmed an award of a $3,780 for failure to timely comply with the employee's first request for documents, but reversed a penalty of $11,440 for a second request, calling for documents that were not essential to the claim. The court remanded an award of attorney fees, stating outcome was "some success on the merits" for the employee but that the plan's position was not without merit.

Participants in a defined-contribution retirement plan filed a class action suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1002(34)), alleging mismanagement and payment of excessive funds. The district court certified the class, but entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part, first upholding denial of a motion to amend the complaint and the court's decision to strike expert testimony relating to matters not in the original complaint. The court remanded a count it characterized as alleging that prudent fiduciaries, armed with the information presented to fiduciaries between 2002 and 2004, would have at least decided between maintaining the status quo and making changes to the common stock funds to limit investment and transactional drag. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants breached the prudent man standard of care by failing to make a reasoned decision under circumstances in which a prudent fiduciary would have done so. The court also remanded a claim that prudent fiduciaries would have solicited competitive bids for record-keeping services on a periodic basis. The court affirmed summary judgment on a claim relating to the trustee's compensation including interest income from "float."