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

The plaintiffs, pilot instructors for United Airlines, filed a class action against the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), their recognized agent for the purpose of collective bargaining, alleging that ALPA had violated its duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151, by adopting a retroactive pay provision that discriminated against pilot instructors.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. To establish a violation of the duty of fair representation, the plaintiffs were required to provide evidence from which a jury could conclude that ALPA’s sole motive in adopting the retroactive pay provision was an illicit one. While the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, could be read to support the proposition that ALPA’s adoption of the formula was motivated in part by animus toward the pilot instructor minority, the question is whether the evidence establishes that ALPA was motivated solely by a desire to discriminate against pilot instructors. There was evidence that some of the motivation for adopting the formula was a desire for a simple formula that could be easily defended. View "Bishop v. Air Line Pilots Association, International" on Justia Law

In these consolidated cases, the plaintiffs owe consumer debts they claim are not owned by the creditors listed on their credit reports. They approached the consumer reporting agencies and requested an investigation of their claims. The consumer reporting agencies contacted the purported creditors for verification that they owned the debts, which the creditors confirmed. Although informed of these confirmations, the plaintiffs did not believe that the consumer reporting agencies investigated the claims as thoroughly as 15 U.S.C. 1681i of the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires, so they sued.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the rejection of the claims. The plaintiffs’ allegations that the creditors did not own their debts are not factual inaccuracies that the consumer reporting agencies are statutorily required to guard against and reinvestigate, but primarily legal issues outside their competency. The plaintiffs are not without recourse. They could confront the creditors who are in the best position to respond to assertions that they do not own the plaintiffs’ debts or, under 15 U.S.C. 1681i(c), make notations of their disputes on their credit reports. The burden to determine whether their debts were validly assigned is not on the consumer reporting agencies. View "Cowans v. Equifax Information Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Bebris sent child pornography over Facebook’s private user-to-user messaging system. Facebook licenses a “hashing” image recognition technology, PhotoDNA, developed by Microsoft. PhotoDNA provides the capability to scan images uploaded onto a company’s platform and compares the “hash” (or essence) of a photo with a database of known images of child pornography. Three of Bebris’s messages were flagged by PhotoDNA. Facebook employees reviewed the images and reported them to the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, as required by 18 U.S.C. 2258A(a), which then reported the images to Wisconsin law enforcement. Those officials obtained a warrant and searched Bebris’s residence, where they found a computer containing numerous child pornography files.Bebris, charged federally with possessing and distributing child pornography., argued that the evidence should be suppressed, contending that Facebook took on the role of a government agent (subject to Fourth Amendment requirements) by monitoring its platform for child pornography and reporting that content. The district court denied his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(a) subpoena seeking pre-trial testimony from a Facebook employee with knowledge of Facebook’s use of PhotoDNA.The Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction. The subpoena sought cumulative testimony. The record included a written declaration from Microsoft and Facebook and live testimony from an executive at NCMEC, which administers the federal reporting system. Facebook did not act as a government agent in this case. View "United States v. Bebris" on Justia Law

Thacker committed several armed robberies in 2002, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1951 (commercial robbery) with two accompanying violations of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) for using and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The district court sentenced Thacker to 400 months’ imprisonment; seven years were attributable to Thacker’s first 924(c) violation. A consecutive 25 years followed for the second 924(c) violation. Those sentences reflected the mandatory minimum and consecutive terms of imprisonment at the time of Thacker’s sentencing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.In August 2020, after exhausting his remedies within the Bureau of Prisons, Thacker sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the First Step Act’s change to 924(c)’s penalty structure and added health-related considerations amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Thacker has Type-2 diabetes and hypertension.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Thacker’s motion. The discretion in section 3582(c)(1)(A) to reduce a sentence upon finding “extraordinary and compelling reasons” does not include the authority to reduce 924(c) sentences lawfully imposed before the effective date of the First Step Act’s anti-stacking amendment. The First Step Act’s change to 924(c) applies only prospectively; the amendment, whether considered alone or in connection with other facts and circumstances, cannot constitute an “extraordinary and compelling” reason to authorize a sentencing reduction. View "United States v. Thacker" on Justia Law

During a 2009 drug purchase, Rabe and his dealer, Powell, got into a fight. Powell jumped into his truck and sped away, running over Rabe. Ryckman, who had been waiting in Rabe’s car, dialed 911. Powell returned. Ryckman and Powell struggled over the phone; the phone was broken in half. Powell returned to his truck and sped away. When police arrived, they found a knife on the ground. Rabe had several serious injuries and was bleeding from a deep gash on his neck. He survived. At trial, Powell argued that the entire incident was an accident and that Rabe attacked him first. Powell was convicted of first‐degree reckless injury but acquitted of attempted first-degree murder.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Powell’s petition for habeas relief, rejecting an argument that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in approving a supplemental jury instruction about the reckless injury charge. There is no clear and convincing evidence to rebut the state appellate court’s conclusion that the instruction was an accurate response to a question from the jury about the definition of “utter disregard for human life.” Powell’s trial counsel had reasonable and strategic reasons for not objecting; by focusing on the injury-producing conduct, he hoped to minimize the chance that the jury would convict Powell based on the severity of Rabe’s injuries. View "Powell v. Fuchs" on Justia Law

Logan, an African American man, was a Chicago Aviation Security Officer. In 2015, he applied for a promotion. He was not selected but was placed on a “Pre-Qualified Candidates” list for future vacancies. Two sergeant positions became available. Logan was second on the list. The city informed him that a city policy made internal candidates ineligible for promotion if they had been suspended for more than seven days in the previous 12 months. Logan had been suspended for more than seven days in the previous year.Logan alleges that he was wrongfully singled out for discipline. After his suspension, Logan complained about being bullied at work and about “discrimination against black officers.” After he filed a grievance, an arbitrator concluded that while Logan committed misconduct sufficient to warrant discipline, the length of his suspension was excessive. The arbitrator ordered Logan's promotion with back pay and benefits.Logan then filed suit, alleging discrimination on the basis of his race and gender and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Other than the fact that Logan is a member of a protected class, there is no evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer that his race caused him to be disciplined. Logan failed to show that his belief that he was opposing an unlawful employment practice was objectively reasonable. View "Logan v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

In 2013-2016, law enforcement investigated a large methamphetamine distribution conspiracy, installing three cameras on utility poles on public property that viewed Tuggle’s home and a shed owned by Tuggle’s coconspirator, Vaultonburg. The cameras recorded around the clock. Rudimentary lighting technology improved the quality of overnight footage; agents could remotely zoom, pan, and tilt the cameras and review the camera footage in real-time or later. Officers tallied over 100 instances of what they suspected were deliveries of methamphetamine to Tuggle’s residence. After these alleged “drops,” different individuals would arrive, enter the home, and purportedly buy methamphetamine. Several witnesses corroborated these activities. Relying heavily on the video evidence, officers secured and executed search warrants on several locations, including Tuggle’s house.After the denial of his motions to suppress, Tuggle pled guilty under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) to conspiring to distribute, and possess with intent to distribute, at least 50 grams of methamphetamine and at least 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine, and 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1) for maintaining a drug-involved premises. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The government used commonplace technology, located where officers were lawfully entitled to be, and captured events observable to any ordinary passerby; it did not invade an expectation of privacy that society would be prepared to accept as reasonable. The prolonged, uninterrupted use of pole cameras did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. View "United States v. Tuggle" on Justia Law

Jackson and Walker sold drugs on six occasions to a confidential source (CS) during a two-month span in 2019. For the final sale, Jackson, through Walker, had agreed to sell 35 grams of crack cocaine to the CS for $1,800. When the CS arrived with Walker to the location for the buy, Jackson handed over only 24.92 grams of crack cocaine. After negotiations, the CS paid Jackson $1,500. Jackson said that he would retrieve and provide the CS the full amount previously agreed. Jackson then traveled to a nearby town to get more crack cocaine before again meeting the CS and Walker at a location one mile from the original meet-up. There, Jackson exchanged 6.28 grams of crack cocaine for the remaining $300.A jury found Jackson guilty of distributing more than 28 grams of crack cocaine. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction, rejecting Jackson’s arguments that the government’s evidence showed that the sale involved two transactions, not one, each amounting to less than 28 grams of crack cocaine and that the district court should have given a lesser-included-offense instruction to allow the jury to find Jackson distributed less than 28 grams of crack cocaine. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Butler, age 51, worked in the past as a millwright and machine repair maintenance worker. He stopped working, claiming he was disabled as of November 4, 2015, because of severe impairments stemming from a stroke, seizures, and heart disease and that he is unable to perform his prior occupation. Butler’s claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401–433, was denied by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) following a hearing. The Appeals Council declined to review the denial.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the ALJ’s determination that Butler was capable of doing light work with some restrictions, and that a sufficient number of such jobs existed that he could perform. Butler has limitations that precluded a determination that he could either perform all light work or perform none. The ALJ clearly recognized that Butler was in the category of persons closely approaching advanced age and appropriately considered that factor as well as Butler’s exertional and non-exertional residual capacity in consulting a vocational expert. View "Butler v. Kijakazi" on Justia Law

Calan-Montiel, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. without inspection and was ordered removed. He was returned to Mexico. He came back, again evading inspection, and was caught again in 2019. Convicted under 8 U.S.C. 1326, for reentering without permission, after a removal order, he was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment. He argued that his first removal was unlawful because his Notice to Appear did not contain the information required by statute.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A removal order that serves as the basis of a section 1326 prosecution is subject to collateral attack only if the alien demonstrates that he exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available, the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. Noncompliance with the one document rule is not a jurisdictional defect in a removal proceeding. There is nothing unfair, “fundamentally or otherwise, about using two documents to provide information.” Calan-Montiel does not deny that he had actual knowledge of the removal order. He could have asked to reopen the proceedings, or sought judicial review, even after being removed. His actions make it impossible to satisfy section 1326(d), even if the agency erred in sending notice of the hearing’s date. View "United States v. Calan-Montiel" on Justia Law