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

Widmar worked as a plant manager for 16 years. The company’s National Manufacturing Manager, Roberts, terminated Widmar’s employment in November 2009, claiming that the company was unsatisfied with Widmar’s performance. Widmar alleges that the company unlawfully terminated him because of his age, and then defamed him by speaking ill of his work performance to others. The district court granted the company summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that Widmar’s factual assertions suffered from several deficiencies, including failure to assert his ability to perform is position in general View "Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff has a commercial driver’s license and drives school buses, but wanted to drive vehicles that ferry equipment and people involved in movie and television productions. In Chicago such drivers belong to the Movie/Trade Show Division of Teamsters Local 727 and are paid twice what plaintiff earns as a bus driver. The Division has about 300 members, but in 70 years, has never referred a female driver to any production company. Because of agreements with those companies, the union effectively determines who is hired. In 2010 plaintiff applied, paid the union’s initiation fee, and began making dues payments. Months later, having received no referrals, she called the business agent, who told her to stop calling him. She received a similar response from a Transportation Coordinator. She claims that her résumé was never included with those of other applicants for referral. Referrals are not based on seniority and there is no shortage of work. She obtained an EEOC right to sue letter. The district court dismissed on the pleadings. The Seventh Circuit reversed and directed assignment to a different judge, noting “the abruptness and irregularity” of the handling of the case and “tone of derision that pervades his opinion.” View "Stuart v. Local 727, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters" on Justia Law

Winston sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Officer O’Brien used excessive force while detaining Winston at a Chicago police station, tasering him repeatedly and punching him while he was in handcuffs. Winston’s attorneys sought $ 20,000 in compensatory damages and an unspecified amount of punitive damages. The jury found that O’Brien was liable for $1 in compensatory damages and $7,500 in punitive damages. Winston then sought $336,918 in attorney’s fees under section 1988. The district court found that Winston’s “victory was real, not Pyrrhic,” that Winston’s attorneys could recover fees for all their requested hours but sought too high of an hourly rate, and granted a reduced fee award of $187,467. Winston filed a petition for indemnification and motion for writ of execution against the city. The district court concluded that the city was liable for the fees under the Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/9-102. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The language of the statute gives the city discretion in deciding to indemnify attorney’s fees associated with an award of compensatory damages, and the collective bargaining agreement with the police union did not convert it into a mandate to pay fees. View "City of Chicago v. Winston" on Justia Law

Meade wrote a letter to the League for Innovation in the Community College about her employer, Moraine Valley Community College. Meade, an adjunct faculty member, alleged that poor treatment of adjuncts harmed students. She signed the letter as president of the adjunct faculty union. Two days later, Moraine Valley fired Meade, sending her written notice explicitly citing Meade’s letter. A few weeks later, the college warned Meade that it would regard her further presence on campus as criminal trespass. Believing that Moraine Valley retaliated against her for exercising her right to freedom of speech and violated her due process rights, Meade sued the college under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed, reasoning that Meade’s letter did not address matters of public interest and could not serve as the basis of a First Amendment retaliation claim. It rejected Meade’s due process claim for lack of a cognizable property interest in her employment. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Meade may not pursue a due process claim based on the deprivation of a liberty interest, but pleaded enough to go forward on the theory that the college deprived her of a protected property interest. She also stated a claim for First Amendment retaliation.View "Meade v. Moraine Valley Cmty. Coll." on Justia Law

In 1981 the plaintiff began working as one of two hairdresser-manicurists at a nursing home. Mondays and Tuesdays the plaintiff would transport residents in their wheelchairs from their rooms to the nursing home’s beauty shop, do their hair, then return them to their rooms. Other days she mainly did the hair of ambulatory residents and of residents confined to their rooms. She had unrelated duties, such as helping in the laundry and carrying trays. In 2010 the plaintiff had a hysterectomy. Her doctor gave her permission to return to work eight weeks later, with the notation that she could not push over 20 pounds, raised to 50 pounds five months later. The doctor advised “you can’t be pushing and lifting” people in wheelchairs, because, over time, that would tear loose the mesh lining “and you’ll be back in for bladder repair.” The plaintiff notified her supervisor, who stated that he would not accommodate her disability. She quit. Until she was replaced, the remaining hairdresser received assistance from other staff in transporting residents. There was no indication that this diversion of staff from their normal duties was costly or impaired the care provided the residents. The district court rejected plaintiff’s suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12112(a). The Seventh Circuit reversed, stating that the employer would have a difficult time establishing that a reasonable accommodation would be a hardship.View "Kauffman v. Petersen Health Care VII, LLC" on Justia Law

After a sports-related injury, Bluestein, an M.D., took intermittent time off for several months, then requested open-ended leave. She was termnted and sued Central Wisconsin Anesthesiology, for discrimination in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701; and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court concluded that Bluestein, a full partner, shareholder, and member of the board of directors of Central Wisconsin, was an employer rather than an employee at the service corporation, and was ineligible for the protections of those statutes. The court also found that Bluestein’s claims would fail as a matter of law on the merits and ordered Bluestein and her attorney to pay attorneys’ fees to Central Wisconsin for pursuing a frivolous lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment and the award of fees and declined to award additional attorneys’ fees.View "Bluestein v. Cent. WI Anesthesiology, S.C." on Justia Law

South Water Market and Local 703 of the Teamsters Union had a collective bargaining agreement that ran from 2004 through April 30, 2007. On September 12, 2007, they reached a new agreement. Abramson, Market’s bargaining representative, was supposed to draft the agreement. Murdoch, the Union’s president reminded Abramson repeatedly. By February 2008 Murdoch was worried that pension and welfare funds covering the employees would cut off participation or sue. In March, Abramson begged off, stating: “I’m having trouble with my notes.” On April 3 Murdoch sent Abramson a document with terms from Murdoch’s notes. Abramson did not reply, but Market began paying wages, and making pension and welfare contributions specified in Murdoch’s text. Murdoch also sent the document to the pension and welfare funds, which submitted bills calculated according to those terms. In July 2009 Castillo retired. He had been one of two workers in the highly-compensated “driver classification. The Murdoch document stated that Market would employ at least two drivers. After Castillo retired, it refused to provide more than one worker with the wages and benefits of the driver classification. The pension and welfare funds sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1145, seeking delinquent contributions for a second driver position. The district judge found that Market had not agreed to the terms. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that the Labor Management Relations Act makes a written agreement essential to participation in a pension or welfare plan, 29 U.S.C. 186(c)(5)(B), and Market does not contend that it wants to drop out of the plans or that it did withdraw Whatever reservations Abramson had were not conveyed to the funds until August 2009, much too late.View "Russ v. South Water Mkt, Inc." on Justia Law

After Continental and United Air Lines merged, they needed to produce unified seniority and longevity rosters for pilots. The Air Line Pilots Association represents all of the pilots. In 2012 the new United and the Union reached an agreement that sets pilot pay based on: rank (captain vs. first officer), type of aircraft flown, and longevity, defined as all time since the date a pilot was hired, including time spent on furlough. Pre-merger, pilots on furlough accrued seniority but not longevity. Plaintiffs challenged ancillary Agreement 25, under which pilots in active service longer than four years and seven months would receive no credit for furlough time; pilots who had four years and six months of service could claim only one month of furlough; and so on. Plaintiffs claimed that the provision slots 475 former United pilots into the table behind former Continental pilots who were hired before May 6, 2008, in violation of the main agreement, and accused the Union of inadequate representation (DFR claim). Defendants replied that the main agreement governs the future, after Agreement 25 determines the pilots’ starting positions. The district judge dismissed United as a party because disputes about the meaning of an airline industry collective bargaining agreement are within the exclusive authority of an adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act, leaving plaintiffs unable to establish both that United violated the contract and that the union did not represent workers fairly. They then argued that the Union negotiated a bad contract. The district court concluded that Agreement 25 is not irrational. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that, with pilots on different sides of the issue, a compromise that favored some over others was inevitable.View "Cunningham v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l" on Justia Law

United Airlines contracts for regional air services under the “United Express” brand. One such supplier owns Trans States and GoJet Airlines. Cuff was on the payroll of Trans States, working at O’Hare Airport. He was fired after he took leave despite denial of his request under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The FMLA applies only if the employer has at least 50 employees within 75 miles of a worker’s station, 29 U.S.C. 2611(2)(B)(ii). Trans States had 33 employees at or within 75 miles of O’Hare, while GoJet had 343. Cuff argued that he worked for Trans States and GoJet jointly. The district court agreed and a jury awarded Cuff $28,800 in compensatory damages. The judge added $14,400 front pay in lieu of reinstatement and awarded Cuff about $325,000 in attorneys’ fees and $6,000 in costs and interest. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, citing Department of Labor regulations providing that workers are covered by the FMLA when they are jointly employed by multiple firms that collectively have 50 or more workers, 29 C.F.R. 825.106(a) and that firms may be treated as a single employer when they operate a joint business, 29 C.F.R. 825.104(c), and noting several indicators that Cuff worked for both operations. The court stated that “the defense had not done its homework; it was content to leave the labor to Cuff’s team and the judge … for issue after issue.”View "Cuff v. Trans State Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Moultrie, who began working at Penn Aluminum in southern Illinois in1990 and held various positions, was demoted from his position as a forklift operator in 2009. Before his demotion, he had filed a grievance concerning a work assignment. That grievance did not allege racial discrimination. He filed another grievance, after the demotion, again not mentioning race. After his claims were rejected by the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the EEOC, Moultrie sued. Penn asserted that Moultrie was demoted because of performance problems that caused delays and other problems and about which he was repeatedly warned. Moultrie, attributed Penn’s decision to racial discrimination and retaliation and claimed that Penn’s conduct violated the collective-bargaining agreement. The district court dismissed an Illinois state-law claim as time barred and entered summary judgment against Moultrie on all remaining claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Moultrie failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his discrimination and retaliation claims.View "Moultrie v. Penn Aluminum Int'l, LLC" on Justia Law