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

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

In 2015, two plaintiffs sued the Chicago Board of Education and various officials, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights and state law. During a deposition in 2017, a confrontation occurred between plaintiffs' attorney Caryn Shaw and opposing counsel Lisa Dreishmire. Shaw allegedly assaulted Dreishmire, leading to police involvement and a complaint to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC). The district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Shaw misled the court about the incident, prolonging the litigation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sanctioned Shaw by removing her from the case and ordering "Plaintiffs' counsel" to reimburse the defendants for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Shaw and her co-counsel, Anne Shaw and Donald Villar, appealed the sanctions. The district court's sanctions were based on findings that Shaw intentionally pushed Dreishmire and misrepresented the incident to the court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the sanctions against Caryn Shaw, finding that she had adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the potential sanctions. However, the court vacated the sanctions against Anne Shaw and Donald Villar, concluding that they did not have sufficient notice or opportunity to respond. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the fee award against Caryn Shaw. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Vega v. Chicago Board of Education" 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

Two healthcare workers, Megan Passarella and Sandra Dottenwhy, employed by Aspirus Health in Wisconsin, sought religious exemptions from the company's COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Passarella cited her Christian belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and expressed concerns about the vaccine's safety. Dottenwhy also referenced her Christian faith, stating that her body is a temple and expressing distrust in the vaccine's development and long-term effects. Both were denied exemptions and subsequently terminated.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed their Title VII claims, ruling that their objections were based on medical judgment rather than religious conviction. The court found that the plaintiffs did not articulate any religious belief that would prevent them from taking the vaccine if they believed it was safe.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that an employee's request for accommodation is based on religion if it is plausibly connected to their religious beliefs or practices, even if it also includes non-religious reasons. The court emphasized that Title VII's definition of religion is broad and includes all aspects of religious observance and practice. The court found that both Passarella's and Dottenwhy's exemption requests were at least partially based on their religious beliefs, making them sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the sincerity of the plaintiffs' beliefs and whether Aspirus could reasonably accommodate them without undue hardship. View "Dottenwhy v. Aspirus, Inc." on Justia Law

RCBA Nutraceuticals, LLC, a Florida-based nutritional supplements company, contracted with Western Packaging, Inc. for the manufacture of plastic zipper pouches to hold its protein powder. These pouches were produced by PolyFirst Packaging, Inc. in Wisconsin, which was later acquired by ProAmpac Holdings, Inc. The pouches were shipped to companies in New York and Texas for filling. RCBA discovered that the pouches were defective, with seams splitting and spilling the protein powder, leading to a lawsuit against ProAmpac in federal court in Wisconsin. RCBA's claims included breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, negligence, civil conspiracy, and fraudulent misrepresentation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed RCBA’s complaint. The court found that the claims were "foreign" under Wisconsin’s borrowing statute, WIS. STAT. § 893.07, and applied the statutes of limitations from New York and Texas for the contract claims, and Florida for the negligence claim. The court concluded that the contract claims were time-barred under the four-year statutes of limitations of New York and Texas, and the negligence claim was time-barred under Florida’s statute of limitations. The remaining tort claims were precluded by the economic loss doctrine. RCBA’s motion to reconsider was denied, with the court ruling that RCBA had waived its equitable arguments by not raising them earlier.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the final significant event for the contract claims occurred where the defective pouches were delivered, in New York and Texas, making the claims foreign and subject to those states' statutes of limitations. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to deny the motion to reconsider, noting that RCBA had waived its equitable arguments by not presenting them in response to the motion to dismiss. The court concluded that RCBA’s claims were either time-barred or precluded. View "RCBA Nutraceuticals, LLC v. ProAmpac Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Shannon Cotton violated the terms of his supervised release by using cocaine and losing contact with his probation officer. The district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to two years in prison, disagreeing with the government's assertion that the maximum revocation sentence should be five years. The dispute centered on the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) regarding the maximum period of imprisonment for such violations.Cotton was originally convicted in 2007 for distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, which carried a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life imprisonment due to prior felony convictions. In 2018, under the First Step Act, his sentence was reduced from 262 months to 188 months. After completing his reduced sentence, Cotton began supervised release in 2020 but subsequently violated its terms, leading to the revocation and the current legal dispute over the maximum revocation sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in its interpretation. The appellate court concluded that the maximum revocation sentence Cotton faced was five years, based on the original classification of his offense as a class A felony under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The court emphasized that the classification of the offense should be based on the original conviction and not on current law or subsequent legal changes. Consequently, the appellate court vacated Cotton's two-year revocation sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, allowing the district court to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and any intervening legal changes. View "United States v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Paula Emerson, a former Cook County Corrections Officer, was terminated in 2019 after being on disability leave since 2012 due to anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Emerson claimed her termination was in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim in 2014 and a Title VII lawsuit against Cook County and its employees, which she lost. She alleged that the same attorneys represented the County in both her workers' compensation proceedings and the Title VII case, and discussed her cases with those responsible for her termination.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Emerson's initial complaint for failure to state a claim, allowing her to amend it. Emerson's amended complaint was also dismissed with prejudice for failing to cure deficiencies. The court found that filing a workers' compensation claim was not a protected activity under the ADA and that Emerson did not adequately allege that her workers' compensation claim caused her termination. Emerson's request for limited discovery was denied due to lack of specific allegations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that Emerson's complaint did not plausibly allege that her workers' compensation claim caused her termination, noting the five-year gap between the claim and her firing. The court also upheld the denial of Emerson's discovery request, deeming it speculative, and found no abuse of discretion in denying her Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, as she presented no new evidence or manifest error of law or fact. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Emerson v. Dart" on Justia Law

Aurelio Cervantes pleaded guilty in 2016 to possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine. The district court sentenced him to 168 months, the bottom of his calculated guidelines range. This calculation included a base offense level of 34, a four-level increase for his role as a leader in a criminal activity involving five or more participants, and a three-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility. Cervantes had no criminal history points, resulting in a guidelines range of 168-210 months. He did not appeal the judgment.In 2023, Cervantes sought to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), citing a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines (Amendment 821) that allows a two-level reduction for certain offenders with no criminal history. The district court denied the motion, determining that Cervantes did not qualify for the reduction because he had received an aggravating-role adjustment under § 3B1.1. The court relied on the Seventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Draheim, which interpreted similar language to require that each negative phrase in a conjunctive list be a separate requirement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of § 4C1.1 de novo. The court agreed with the district court, holding that Cervantes’s role adjustment under § 3B1.1 disqualified him from eligibility for the two-level reduction under § 4C1.1. The court found that the conjunctive "and" in § 4C1.1(a)(10) should be interpreted similarly to the language in Draheim, meaning that each condition listed is a separate requirement. The court also noted that a pending amendment to § 4C1.1 would clarify this interpretation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that any error in the alternative ground for denial was harmless. View "USA v. Cervantes" on Justia Law

F.C. Bloxom Company, a Seattle-based distributor of fresh produce, entered into an agreement with Seven Seas Fruit to deliver three loads of onions to Honduras. The onions required phytosanitary certificates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to clear Honduran customs, but the parties did not explicitly discuss who would procure these certificates. Bloxom believed Seven Seas would handle it, based on past practices and vague assurances. However, the onions were shipped without the necessary certificates, leading to their rejection in Honduras and eventual spoilage upon return to the U.S.Seven Seas initiated administrative proceedings under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) when Bloxom refused to pay for the onions. The Secretary of Agriculture ruled in favor of Seven Seas, finding no evidence that Seven Seas had agreed to procure the certificates. Bloxom appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, which granted summary judgment for Seven Seas. The court found that Bloxom had accepted the onions at the Port of Long Beach and did not revoke that acceptance, thus obligating Bloxom to pay for the onions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Bloxom had accepted the onions by shipping them to Honduras and did not revoke this acceptance even after learning the certificates were missing. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Bloxom's request for additional discovery time, as further discovery would not have changed the outcome. The court concluded that Bloxom was liable for the payment under PACA. View "F.C. Bloxom Company v. Tom Lange Company International, Inc." on Justia Law

On March 17, 2022, Anycco Rivers and Ladonta Tucker carjacked a BMW in Bourbonnais, Illinois. Rivers pointed two guns at the car’s owner, while Tucker searched the owner and then drove the car away. During a high-speed chase, Rivers fired a gun into the air. The chase ended when the BMW crashed into a guardrail. Tucker and Rivers fled on foot but were eventually captured. Police found firearms and spent cartridges at the scene.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois indicted both Rivers and Tucker on charges of carjacking and firearms violations. At trial, both were found guilty. Tucker was sentenced to 100 months for carjacking and an additional 60 months for the firearms charge, plus 24 months for violating supervised release, totaling 184 months. Rivers received 87 months for carjacking and 120 months for the firearms charge. Rivers objected to a two-level enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight, which the district court applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Tucker challenged his conviction, arguing insufficient evidence that his firearm facilitated the carjacking. The court upheld his conviction, stating that the jury could reasonably conclude that carrying a firearm during a carjacking had the potential to facilitate the crime. Rivers challenged his sentence enhancement and requested resentencing due to recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. The court affirmed the enhancement but vacated and remanded Rivers’s carjacking sentence for reconsideration in light of the new Guidelines amendments. View "USA v. Tucker" on Justia Law