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

James has been an employee of Hyatt Regency Chicago since 1985. In 2007, James took a leave of absence due to an eye injury that occurred outside of work. James filed suit in 2009 claiming that Hyatt violated his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.12101. During discovery, the district court denied James’ motions to compel and awarded Hyatt a portion of attorney’s fees it expended responding to motions. The court subsequently granted Hyatt summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. In light of the limitations imposed by his doctors, Hyatt did not violate the FMLA or the ADA in refusing to allow James to return to work for “light duty” before doctors released him to perform functions essential to his position. James used discovery as a weapon, rather than as a tool to gather evidence. View "James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago" on Justia Law

When an employer participating in a multi-employer pension plan withdraws from the plan with unpaid liabilities, federal law can pierce corporate veils and impose liability on owners and related businesses. The Fund is a multi-employer pension plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act/Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461. Messina Trucking was subject to a collective bargaining agreement that required it to contribute to the Fund for retirement benefits. Messina Trucking permanently ceased to have an obligation to contribute to the Fund, triggering a “complete withdrawal” and incurring nearly $3.1 million in potential withdrawal liability. The Fund sought a declaratory judgment that defendants were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability as “trades or businesses” under “common control” with Messina Trucking. The district court held that Mr. and Mrs. Messina, who owned and leased several residential properties as well as the property from which Messina Trucking operated, were not engaged in a “trade or business” and could not be held liable for the withdrawal liability, but that Messina Products, as a formal business organization could be held liable for Messina. The Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the Fund, holding that both can be held liable. View "Cent. States Se & Sw Areas Pension Fund v. Messina" on Justia Law

Eight members of the Teamsters’ Union sued their former employer under the Labor-Management Relations Act, for terminating their employment on grounds forbidden by a collective bargaining agreement and sued their union, Local 705, for settling their grievances for an unsatisfactory sum, allegedly violating its duty of fair representation. The district dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the claim against Local 705. “Hybrid” claims for violations of a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 185(a) may be asserted against an employer and a union when the employee needs the union to litigate a grievance. But the employees in this case did not need Local 705 to litigate their grievance, because as soon as the employer repudiated the arbitration procedure mandated by the contract, the employees could have gone straight to federal court with a claim solely against the employer. The claim against the union is not part of a “hybrid” and fails on the merits because the collective bargaining agreement expired before the plaintiffs were terminated, so no agreement was violated. The union had provided an unambiguous, timely notice to terminate the collective bargaining agreement. View "Rutherford v. Judge & Dolph, Ltd." on Justia Law

McArdle was hired as principal of Lindbergh School in 2008 with a two-year contract that allowed termination after one year with payment of severance. Lindbergh’s prior principal, Davis, was McArdle’s superior. McArdle claims that she discovered irregularities, including Davis’ use of school funds for personal purposes; improper payment to a student teacher; and circumvention of rules regarding admission of nonresidents. McArdle alleges that she received evasive responses from Davis. Davis put McArdle on a performance improvement plan in 2009, asserting parental complaints, but refusing to identify complainants. McArdle was told that the board would consider termination of her contract. McArdle consulted an attorney and filed a police report, accusing Davis of theft of school funds. She sent letters to the board, listing improprieties. Davis was excused from the meeting; the board discussed McArdle’s allegations, then voted to terminate McArdle’s contract at the end of the school year. Davis was prosecuted for theft of school funds. The district court granted defendants summary judgment on claims under the First Amendment and of breach and interference with contract. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. McArdle’s reporting of misconduct was speech as a public employee, not shielded from her employer’s response; defendants’ motives are immaterial. View "McArdle v. Peoria Sch. Dist. 150" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, business owners appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations requiring group health insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization procedures, 42 U.S.C. 300gg‐13(a)(4). Employers who do not comply face a penalty of $100 per day per employee and an annual tax surcharge of $2,000 per employee, 29 U.S.C. 1132(a). The Seventh Circuit granted an injunction, pending appeal, concluding that the businesses had established a reasonable likelihood of success on their claims, that the equitable balance favored granting the injunction; and that harm to religious‐liberty rights outweighed the temporary harm to the government’s interest in providing greater access to cost‐free contraception and related services. The court rejected arguments that a secular, for‐profit corporation cannot assert a claim under Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000 bb; that the free‐exercise rights of the individual plaintiffs are not affected because their corporation is a separate legal entity; and that the mandate’s burden on free‐exercise rights is too remote and attenuated to qualify as “substantial” because the decision to use contraception benefits is made by third parties, individual employees, in consultation with their medical providers. View "Grote v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Pharmaceutical company (Baxter) offered Dr. Rapold, who is Swiss and was living in Europe, the position of Medical Director of Cellular Therapy at its Illinois headquarters. The position was described as “at will.” Unable to wait while Rapold obtained a visa, Baxter entered into a consulting agreement with Rapold to enable him to begin work immediately from Europe. During the six-month consultancy, there were reports of problematic behavior involving rudeness and fits of anger. Baxter revoked the offer. The district court rejected his nationality discrimination claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the district court erred by refusing to tender his proffered mixed-motive jury instruction. View "Rapold v. Baxter Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2011, the Wisconsin Legislature passed Act 10, a budget repair bill proposed by recently-elected Governor Walker. Act 10 significantly altered state public employee labor laws, creating two classes of public employees: “public safety employees” and all others, “general employees.” The Act prohibited general employees from collectively bargaining on issues other than “base wages,” imposed rigorous recertification requirements on them, and prohibited their employers from deducting union dues from paychecks. The Act did not subject public safety employees or their unions to the same requirements. The enactment was controversial and received nationwide publicity. Unions filed suit, challenging the limitations on collective bargaining, the recertification requirements, and a prohibition on payroll deduction of dues, under the Equal Protection Clause. They also challenged the payroll deduction provision under the First Amendment. The district court invalidated Act 10’s recertification and payroll deduction provisions, but upheld the limitation on collective bargaining. The Seventh Circuit held that the Act is valid in its entirety. Act 10 is viewpoint-neutral and, while “publicly administered payroll deductions for political purposes can enhance the unions’ exercise of First Amendment rights, [states are] under no obligation to aid the unions in their political activities.” The classifications and recertification requirement survive rational basis review. View "WI Educ. Ass'n v. Walker" on Justia Law

In 2011, BEST fired Aslin, a securities broker, to remain compliant with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority “Taping Rule,” which requires securities firms to adopt monitoring measures when too many of their brokers have recently worked for “Disciplined Firms.” Instead of adopting such measures, the employer may terminate brokers. FINRA, a private corporation, is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a “national securities association.” The Maloney Act provides for establishment of private self-regulatory organizations to oversee securities markets, 15 U.S.C. 78o. The SEC must approve FINRA’s rules and may abrogate, add to, and delete FINRA rules. Aslin filed suit alleging that FINRA violated his due process rights by including him on the list of brokers from Disciplined Firms without providing him the opportunity to challenge the designation. The district court dismissed, concluding that Aslin failed to state a claim because he was not deprived of a protected property or liberty interest. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Since Aslin sought only injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent application of the rule to him, the controversy ended in 2012, after which Aslin was no longer included on the list of brokers from Disciplined Firms and the case was moot. View "Aslin v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Inc." on Justia Law

Labor unions allowed non-union members, part of their bargaining units, to opt out of paying dues used to support political and other activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment, pursuant to CWA v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988). The unions required that objections be renewed annually basis to remain opted-out. Nonmember employees filed unfair labor practice charges, arguing that the annual renewal policies violated the unions’ duty of fair representation by placing an undue burden on objectors. Although they did not seek refunds for themselves because they were always opted-out, they sought refunds for others who filed objections at one time, but failed to renew. The NLRB struck down the annual renewal policies, but did not grant refunds. The Seventh Circuit declined to address an appeal and an argument that the April 2012 final NLRB orders were not legitimate because the President’s January 4, 2012 recess appointments of three of the five NLRB members were invalid. Plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal since the NLRB struck down the annual renewal policies, which were the only source of injury each suffered. They no longer suffer an injury-in-fact and do not satisfy the statutory “aggrieved” requirement, 29 U.S.C. 160(f). View "Richards v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

In 1995 Chicago administered a civil-service examination for the fire department and initially hired those with scores of 89 to 100. From 2002-2006 it hired from the group who had scored 65 to 88. Plaintiffs contend that drawing a line at 89 had an unjustified disparate effect on black applicants, violating Title VII. Following a 2000 remand, in 2006 the district court held that the city had not proved justification. The Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that the charge had been filed after the limitations period expired. In 2010, the Supreme Court, reversed, holding that a new claim accrued with each use of the list to hire. The district court held that 111 class members must be hired; others receive damages. Prospective intervenors have worked as firefighters since 2005. Each contends that he thought that he would receive extra seniority, pension credits, or back pay in this litigation and that he is entitled to intervene, after judgment, because he did not know that class counsel had decided not to seek relief for persons hired from the 65-88 pool. The district judge found their motion untimely. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Lewis v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law