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

Paul Carnes, an employee of Consolidated Grain and Barge Co., was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease in 2019 and received medical treatment for it. HMO Louisiana, Inc., the administrator of Consolidated Grain’s employer-sponsored health plan governed by ERISA, paid for some of Carnes’s treatments but not all. Carnes filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, which was settled without the employer accepting responsibility for his medical claims. With an outstanding medical balance of around $190,000, Carnes sued HMO Louisiana, alleging it violated Illinois state insurance law by not paying his medical bills and sought penalties for its alleged "vexatious and unreasonable" conduct.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed Carnes’s complaint on the grounds that his state law insurance claim was preempted by ERISA. The court allowed Carnes to amend his complaint to plead an ERISA claim, but instead, Carnes moved to reconsider the dismissal. The district court denied his motion and ordered the case closed. Carnes then appealed the final order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that Carnes’s state law claim was preempted by ERISA. The court noted that ERISA’s broad preemption clause supersedes any state laws relating to employee benefit plans, and Carnes’s claim fell within this scope. The court also found that ERISA’s saving clause did not apply because the health plan in question was self-funded, making it exempt from state regulation. The court concluded that Carnes’s attempt to frame his suit as a "coordination of benefits dispute" was an impermissible effort to avoid ERISA preemption. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of Carnes’s case. View "Carnes v. HMO Louisiana, Inc." on Justia Law

John Smith, an employee of Sysco Indianapolis, LLC, did not receive a monthly benefit check he expected. His labor union, Teamsters Local 135, filed a grievance on his behalf, alleging that Sysco violated their 2018 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by not providing a $500 Supplemental Early Retirement Benefit (SERB) to certain retirees and employees. Sysco participated in the initial grievance process but refused to proceed to arbitration, arguing that the grievance was not arbitrable under the CBA. Sysco then sought a declaratory judgment from the district court, while the Union counterclaimed for a declaration that the grievance was arbitrable.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana sided with Sysco, finding that the monthly benefit was governed by terms outside the CBA and that the parties' bargaining history indicated they did not intend for the benefit to be arbitrable. The court granted Sysco's motion for summary judgment and denied the Union's counterclaims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reached a different conclusion. The appellate court found that Sysco failed to present the "most forceful evidence" required to exclude the monthly benefit from the arbitration provision in the CBA. The court noted that the grievance fell within the scope of the arbitration clause on its face and that the CBA did not explicitly exclude the SERB from arbitration. The court also found that the parties' bargaining history did not clearly demonstrate an intent to exclude the benefit from arbitration. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the grievance must be sent to arbitration. View "Sysco Indianapolis LLC v. Teamsters Local 135" on Justia Law

The case involves Jose Ageo Luna Vanegas, a guestworker employed by Signet Builders, Inc., who alleges that Signet overworked and underpaid him in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Signet, incorporated and headquartered in Texas, hires H-2A visa holders for agricultural work, which it claims exempts them from FLSA overtime pay requirements. Luna Vanegas, who built livestock structures in multiple states including Wisconsin, filed a collective action against Signet in the Western District of Wisconsin, seeking to represent similarly situated workers.The district court initially dismissed the case, citing the FLSA’s agricultural exemption, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed that decision. Luna Vanegas then moved for conditional certification to notify other Signet workers nationwide about the collective action. Signet argued that the notice should be limited to workers in Wisconsin, asserting that the court only had specific jurisdiction over claims from that state. The district court allowed nationwide notice but certified the question of whether specific jurisdiction is required for each opt-in plaintiff’s claim. The district court held that such jurisdiction was not required, leading to this interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The court held that in FLSA collective actions, personal jurisdiction must be established for each plaintiff’s claim individually, whether representative or opt-in. The court rejected the argument that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 could be used to establish nationwide personal jurisdiction in FLSA cases. The court concluded that the district court’s personal jurisdiction is limited to claims that fall within Wisconsin’s specific jurisdiction, and any expansion of jurisdiction would require new Rule 4 service. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this holding. View "Ageo Luna Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc." on Justia Law

Five former participants in the Salvation Army's residential rehabilitation program filed a lawsuit alleging that the organization subjected them to forced labor. The plaintiffs, who participated in the program to address issues such as homelessness and substance abuse, were required to work approximately forty hours per week in exchange for food, clothing, and housing. They claimed that the work was not therapeutic but rather a coercive labor arrangement benefiting the Salvation Army financially. The plaintiffs included both individuals who voluntarily enrolled in the program and those referred by courts or parole/probation departments.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The court found that the justice-referred plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as they were allegedly compelled to participate by state court orders. For the walk-in plaintiffs, the court concluded that the threats of losing food, clothing, and shelter were not sufficiently serious to constitute forced labor under federal law. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the Salvation Army acted with the requisite intent to compel labor through threats of serious harm. The district court denied the plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint, leading to an immediate entry of judgment for the Salvation Army.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the justice-referred plaintiffs' claims, as their participation was not compelled by state court orders but by parole or probation officers. However, the court found that the plaintiffs' allegations did not plausibly indicate that the Salvation Army violated the forced labor provisions. The walk-in plaintiffs were free to leave the program at any time, and the justice-referred plaintiffs did not adequately demonstrate how the conditions of their participation constituted forced labor. The court also agreed that the proposed second amended complaint would not cure the deficiencies of the original complaint. View "Taylor v. The Salvation Army National Corporation" on Justia Law

Lanlan Li, a 51-year-old woman of Chinese descent, worked as a senior scientist at Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC. In 2019, she developed back pain and eye strain, which led her to take various types of leave. Despite accommodations, her back injury persisted, and she could not return to her position. Consequently, Fresenius terminated her employment. Li sued the company for disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), as well as for national origin and age discrimination under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of Fresenius on all claims. The court found that Li failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her age and national origin claims, as she did not include a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR). The court also held that her disability and retaliation claims failed on the merits, noting that Li was not a qualified individual under the ADA because she could not perform the essential functions of her job, including bench work.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Li was not a qualified individual under the ADA and that Fresenius had provided reasonable accommodations. The court also found that Li failed to present evidence of age or national origin discrimination and that her retaliation claim lacked a causal connection between her EEOC charges and her termination. Therefore, the court upheld the summary judgment in favor of Fresenius. View "Li v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Angela Midthun-Hensen and Tony Hensen sought insurance coverage for therapies for their daughter K.H.'s autism from Group Health Cooperative between 2017 and 2019. The insurer denied coverage, citing a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of speech therapy for a child K.H.'s age and sensory-integration therapy for autism at any age. The family's employer-sponsored plan only covered "evidence-based" treatments. After several medical reviews and appeals upheld the insurer's decision, the parents sued, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and state law regarding autism coverage.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled in favor of the insurer, finding no violations of state law or ERISA. The plaintiffs then focused on their claim that the insurer's actions violated the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA), which mandates equal treatment limitations for mental and physical health benefits. They argued that the insurer applied the "evidence-based" requirement more stringently to autism therapies than to chiropractic care, which they claimed lacked scientific support.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the insurer's reliance on medical literature, which varied in its recommendations based on patient age, was permissible under the Parity Act. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the insurer's treatment limitations for mental health benefits were more restrictive than those applied to "substantially all" medical and surgical benefits, as required by the statute. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' focus on a single medical benefit was insufficient to prove a violation of the Parity Act. View "Midthun-Hensen v. Group Health Cooperative of South Central, Inc.," on Justia Law

A group of employees sued their employer, Metalcraft of Mayville, for not paying them for time spent working just before or after their shifts. The employees alleged that Metalcraft's timekeeping system, which allowed clocking in up to 15 minutes before and after shifts, did not accurately reflect the time they worked. They claimed that adjustments to their clock-in times were made even when they performed compensable work during these periods.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin decertified the collective action in April 2020, leading to 24 additional cases being filed and consolidated. Nine cases were dismissed for various reasons, and the district court granted summary judgment to Metalcraft in the four selected cases, ruling that the employees' evidence was speculative and insufficient. The remaining 12 plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their cases, acknowledging that the summary judgment ruling likely determined their claims. Metalcraft then moved for sanctions against the plaintiffs' counsel, arguing that the lawsuits were frivolous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the district court's denial of sanctions. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had enough factual and legal support for their claims to avoid sanctions. The court noted that FLSA claims can be based on reconstructed memories when an employer's record-keeping is inadequate. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' legal arguments regarding the Portal-to-Portal Act and the de minimis doctrine were not baseless. The appellate court emphasized that the standard for summary judgment is different from the standard for Rule 11 sanctions and that the plaintiffs' failure to win on summary judgment did not make their cases frivolous. Therefore, the denial of sanctions was affirmed. View "Farina v. Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc." on Justia Law

Jason Beckner, employed by Commercial Air, Inc., was injured while working on a construction site in Zionsville, Indiana. Commercial Air had rented a crane and operator from Maxim Crane Works, L.P. for a day to lift roof trusses. Beckner claimed that the crane operator, Emmitt Pugh, caused his injury through negligent operation. Beckner and his wife sued Maxim Crane for negligence, asserting vicarious liability.The case was initially filed in Indiana state court but was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana based on diversity jurisdiction. Maxim Crane moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Indiana’s Worker’s Compensation Act barred the suit because Pugh was a co-employee of Beckner. The district court denied the motion to dismiss but later granted summary judgment in favor of Maxim Crane, ruling that Pugh was also employed by Commercial Air, making the Worker’s Compensation Act Beckner’s exclusive remedy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Pugh was an employee of Commercial Air. The court noted conflicting evidence about who controlled Pugh’s work and whether Commercial Air believed it employed Pugh. The court applied both the seven-factor test from Hale v. Kemp and the ten-factor test from Moberly v. Day, concluding that factual disputes precluded summary judgment.The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve these factual issues. View "Beckner v. Maxim Crane Works, L.P." on Justia Law

Irma Leibas, a correctional officer at the Cook County Department of Corrections (DOC), has pre-existing medical conditions requiring workplace accommodations, including up to three additional breaks per shift. After the DOC denied her request for these accommodations, Leibas sued, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Leibas’s accommodation and discrimination claims. However, upon reconsideration and after both parties supplemented the record, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Leibas was not a qualified individual under the ADA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court examined whether Leibas could perform the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation. The court found that maintaining the safety and security of the DOC is an essential function of a correctional officer. Leibas’s requested accommodation of additional breaks, including rest periods, was deemed unreasonable given the unpredictable and violent environment of the DOC, which requires officers to be able to stand for long periods and respond to emergencies without delay. The court also noted that the DOC’s staffing shortages and the need for continuous coverage further complicated the feasibility of Leibas’s requested accommodations.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Leibas did not provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact that she could perform the essential functions of her position with the requested accommodations. View "Leibas v. Dart" on Justia Law

Christine Bube and Connie Hedrington, both registered nurses, worked for Aspirus, Inc., a non-profit hospital system. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Aspirus mandated that all employees receive the COVID vaccine, allowing exemptions for religious reasons. Bube and Hedrington applied for religious exemptions, citing their Catholic faith and beliefs about bodily integrity and health. Aspirus denied their requests and terminated their employment in December 2021.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed Bube and Hedrington’s Title VII claim, reasoning that their accommodation requests did not sufficiently tie their objections to specific religious beliefs or practices. The court concluded that their objections were primarily about personal autonomy and vaccine safety, rather than religious beliefs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that an employee seeks accommodation because of their religion when their request is plausibly based at least in part on some aspect of their religious belief or practice. Applying this standard, the court found that Bube’s and Hedrington’s requests were indeed based in part on their religious beliefs. The court emphasized that Title VII’s broad definition of religion requires a hands-off approach to defining religious exercise. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bube v. Aspirus Hospital, Inc" on Justia Law