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

Twenty-year-veteran Deputy Yahnke supported the Sheriff’s opponent in a 2006 election. The prior Sheriff had approved Yahnke’s request to work as the part-time Maple Park police chief. After the new Sheriff took office, Yahnke was injured while working as a Deputy Sheriff and began receiving disability benefits. The Sheriff advised Yahnke that his secondary employment was suspended until he could return to work in the Sheriff’s office. At a party, Yahnke openly discussed running for the Sheriff’s position in 2010. Based on the Sheriff’s inquiry, the Illinois Attorney General concluded that secondary employment presented a potential conflict of interest. The Sheriff initiated an investigation, which concluded that Yahnke continued to work for Maple Park while his secondary employment was suspended. The Sheriff notified Yahnke that he was seeking his removal for cause. After the Sheriff terminated Yahnke’s employment, Yahnke sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed as to the due process claim but vacated on the political affiliation count. A process existed for Yahnke to challenge his termination: a hearing before the Merit Commission or a grievance followed by arbitration The finder of fact could conclude that the Sheriff rejected lesser sanctions in favor of termination because Yahnke expressed a desire to run against the Sheriff, which is enough to defeat summary judgment. View "Yahnke v. County of Kane" on Justia Law

The National Labor Relations Board determined that Polycon had violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), by refusing to sign a collective bargaining agreement after agreeing to its terms because employees of Polycon were circulating a petition to decertify the union as their collective bargaining representative. The Seventh Circuit enforced its order, directing Polycon to sign the agreement and comply with its terms until it expires. The decertification petition may have been signed by a majority of the employees as early as May 9, and by May 22 clearly commanded a majority, but either date was too late for Polycon to repudiate a collective bargaining agreement to which the company had agreed on May 3. Polycon’s challenge bordered on the frivolous. Polycon could have asked for correction of any material mistakes before signing the contract but could not refuse to review and sign it because of the mere possibility that it contained a mistake. View "Polycon Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

From 2005-2009, Assaf was medical director for Trinitiy's epilepsy clinic. Trinity terminated his employment; Assaf filed suit. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2010,under which Assaf would be employed by Trinity from 2009 until at least 2011 as Director of the Neuroscience Program. The position never materialized. Assaf obtained summary judgment on his claim for breach of that settlement agreement. Assaf sought lost salary for the years in which he was to have been employed under the agreement, and lost professional fees during that time. The court rejected the claim for lost professional fees ,holding that Assaf failed to provide an adequate estimate of the loss, then entered judgment without trial awarding Assaf his salary for 2009-2011 and compensatory damages totaling $172,759 plus $15,000 in attorneys’ fees. The Seventh Circuit reversed with respect to professional fees. On remand, Assaf sought to establish that his professional fees from EEG video monitoring and follow‐up of epilepsy patients decreased as a result of Trinity’s failure to rehire him. The court used a verdict form asking the jury “Did Dr. Assaf prove that he sustained damages as explained in these instructions.“ The jury responded “No.” Judgment was entered for Trinity. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Assaf had no valid claim to damages for lost professional fees, so any errors were harmless. View "Assaf v. Trinity Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Columbia hired Professor Roberts in 1999. Roberts achieved tenure in 2003 and began creating a custom textbook, with the help of a colleague and graduate students. Roberts worked with McGraw‐Hill and used materials from three existing textbooks plus limited original material. The cover page of the custom text states, “Peer review, class testing, and accuracy are primarily the responsibility of the author(s).” The first time Roberts saw the completed textbook was when he purchased it after his students for the 2004 fall semester arrived in class having purchased the textbook. Roberts then noticed several errors, such as omitting the reference to the text. Roberts called McGraw‐Hill, but did not follow up with details. He provided his students with a corrected reference page. Roberts and his colleagues did not use the custom text again due to the errors and its price. Roberts made no further efforts to ensure McGraw‐Hill corrected the omissions. Roberts updated his curriculum vitae twice, listing the text as his publication. In 2011, Roberts, then about 50 years old, had several conflicts with the department chair, which Roberts believed were based on age discrimination. After a plagiarism investigation, Roberts was terminated. The Seventh Circuit affirmed rejection, on summary judgment, of his claims of breach of contract and under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621. View "Roberts v. Columbia College Chicago" on Justia Law

Central States is multiemployer pension fund. Bulk Transport is a Fund member and made contributions to the pension account of its employee, Loniewski. Bulk had certified that Loniewski was entitled by a collective bargaining agreement to participate in the Fund although the agreement was limited to Bulk’s drivers. Loniewski was a Bulk mechanic for 40 years. Bulk now denies that he was covered and has demanded that Central States refund $49,000 that Bulk had contributed to Loniewski’s pension account between 2002 and 2012. The Fund denied the request and sought a declaratory judgment. The district judge rejected Bulk’s claim. The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 amends ERISA by imposing liabilty on employers who withdraw, partially or completely, from participation in an underfunded multiemployer pension fund, 29 U.S.C. 1381. Central States also assessed Bulk with withdrawal liability of $740,000 for the years 2010 through 2012, which Bulk challenged as excessive. At Bulk’s request, the court barred the Fund from enforcing its rules, which require arbitration of such a dispute by and conforming to the procedures of the American Arbitration Association. The Seventh Circuit affirmed with respect to the refund, but reversed with respect to the arbitration rules. View "Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Funds v. Bulk Transp. Corp." on Justia Law

Wells worked as a “computer navigator” at the Winnebago County courthouse, helping pro se litigants deal with the judicial system’s requirements. She claimed that before her departure to take a better job, state and county officials discriminated against her on the basis of her race (she is black) and disability (chronic fatigue syndrome). The district court granted summary judgment to the county, finding any discrimination attributable to state workers and that the record would not allow a reasonable jury to find actionable discrimination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Evidence would permit a jury to find that Winnebago County was Wells’s employer, the entity responsible for complying with federal employment discrimination statutes, regardless of the identity of the person whose acts are complained of, but Wells was treated the same as the other computer navigators, who were white. She did not contend that any supervisor said anything about race or used language with racial connotations. Time off had been granted as an accommodation of her disability and Wells did not substantiate the medical need for any additional accommodation. View "Wells v. Winnebago County" on Justia Law

Kuttner began working as a DuPage County deputy sheriff in 1998. In an October 2009 complaint, Sheriff Zaruba asserted that, several months earlier, Kuttner, in uniform, visited the home of a person who owed money to her boyfriend. The debtor’s father had answered the door and told Kuttner that his son was not home. Kuttner left a business card listing her name and a company called “Team in Focus.” Kuttner stipulated to the facts and admitted to violating two rules: by “conduct unbecoming” an officer and improper wearing of the uniform. Other disciplinary charges were dropped. The Merit Commission determined that Kuttner’s conduct was serious enough to warrant discharge. The EEOC declined action. Kuttner sued, claiming sex discrimination (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) and alleging that Kuttner was fired and denied a promotion because of her sex and that the sheriff’s policies regarding jail staffing discriminated against female employees. Her lawyer sought the personnel files of more than 30 employees in an effort to find a “similarly situated” employee who was treated differently. The judge imposed limits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed those limits and summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Kuttner v. Zaruba" on Justia Law

Chaib worked for GEO Group, a private company that managed an Indiana correctional facility. In 2011-2012, Chaib filed several complaints of racism and workplace harassment with the human resources department and her supervisor. She was injured at work in March 2012, when a remotely-operated metal gate hit her head. Chaib suffered a concussion, GEO Group became suspicious that Chaib was malingering, had an investigator videotape her in public places, and sent the videos to a neurologist whom Chaib was scheduled to visit, ahead of the appointment and without Chaib’s knowledge. The neurologist opined to GEO Group that Chaib was likely malingering. Chaib returned to work after six weeks. She was ultimately fired for “unbecoming conduct” because she improperly extended her medical leave. Chaib sued under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e., and 42 U.S.C. 1981, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and national origin, and retaliation for her reports of workplace discrimination. Chaib also alleged, under Indiana law, that GEO Group had retaliated against her for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of GEO. Chaib did not present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that GEO Group terminated Chaib for discriminatory reasons View "Chaib v. Geo Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Indiana Department of Child Services oversees state child protection services, child support enforcement, and the Indiana foster care system. For nine years, Nuñez and Martinez worked as investigators in the DCS Gary office. In 2014, they sued for violations of the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 207(a), claiming that DCS required them to work during lunch and to remain on call after their shifts, despite being paid for only 40 hours per week. The district court dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, rejecting an argument that Indiana had given consent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. States must explicitly waive sovereign immunity, not explicitly preserve it. Indiana did not do so. View "Nunez v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs." on Justia Law

Hill and Roberts applied for firefighter positions with the Chicago Fire Department in 1995, but were not hired because of their scores on a pre-employment examination. They joined a class of roughly 6,000 similarly-situated applicants who argued that the hiring process had an unjustified adverse impact on African-American applicants. In 2011, the court ordered the city to hire 111 class members who were denied employment based on examination scores and to provide compensation to others. The court specified a hiring process with strict deadlines. In October 2011, plaintiffs were notified that they would need to complete a physical abilities test, a drug screening, and a background check. By January 5, 2012, both successfully completed these requirements. On February 22-23, they were notified—allegedly for the first time—that they also needed to pass a medical screening and received offers of employment conditioned on medical screening. Both men complied with the city’s requests concerning identified medical conditions, but they were not hired. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued right-to-sue letters. Their complaint alleged discrimination against Roberts because of his bronchitis and against Hill because of his asthma and past problems with a hernia and kidney stones. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that plaintiffs did not adequately allege violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. View "Hill v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law