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

A collective bargaining agreement (CBA), covered employees at United’s Indiana distribution center, prohibiting strikes and lock-outs during the life of the agreement. Negotiations over a successor agreement were ongoing when the existing agreement expired in September 2019. The agreement provided: So long as negations are ongoing, all terms and provisions of the existing CBA will continue to apply. However, “[i]n the event of a strike, the provisions of this section do not apply.” Bargaining over a new agreement came to a standstill on September 20. On December 12, Local 414 went on strike with a picket line at the Indiana facility. On December 17, Local 414 began additional picketing at United’s Minnesota and Wisconsin distribution centers. Workers there walked off the job. On December 18, Local 414 ended the strike and ceased picketing at the other sites. In July 2020, Local 414 engaged in another strike in Indiana.United filed suit under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, alleging that the strikes violated the CBA’s no-strike provisions. Local 414 moved to compel arbitration of the claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that the claims were not subject to arbitration. The arbitration procedure is focused exclusively on employee-initiated grievances and does not apply to employer-initiated grievances. The arbitration clause is not reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that includes an employer-initiated dispute regarding the CBA’s terms. View "United Natural Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 414" on Justia Law

Wirth was employed as an RLJ office manager, paid on an hourly basis, and required to clock in and out. RLJ closed its offices every day from 1−2 pm and did not schedule patients during that time. Employees were expected to take an hour-long unpaid lunch break during which they were free to leave the office. Wirth clocked out for less than 30 minutes 89 times during the nine months of her employment. Wirth’s supervisor repeatedly told her to take full lunch breaks. After Wirth was terminated, she filed suit, arguing that RLJ failed to compensate her for lunch breaks in violation of Wisconsin’s Wage Payment and Collection Laws, which requires employers to compensate employees for breaks less than 30 minutes, but not for meal periods of 30 minutes or more during which the employee is completely relieved from duty. Although RLJ paid her for the time she was clocked in during the lunch hour, Wirth argued that RLJ was also required to pay her for the time she was clocked out and admittedly not working.The Seventh Circuit affirmed that under Wisconsin law, RLJ was not required to compensate Wirth for the lunch periods as long as it consistently provided her with a break of at least 30 minutes. The court found that Wirth chose not to take the full lunch break even though her job duties did not prevent her from doing so “to increase her earnings.” View "Wirth v. RLJ Dental, S.C." on Justia Law

The Partnership filed a contract claim in a Chinese court against Wan, his company, and his brother. The Chinese court entered a default judgment against Wan after he failed to appear. A year later, the Partnership filed a complaint in the Central District of Illinois, seeking enforcement of the Chinese judgment under the Illinois foreign judgment recognition law, predicating subject matter jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. The district court, determining that the Chinese judgment was enforceable under Illinois law, granted the Partnership summary judgment.The Seventh Circuit vacated, finding the factual predicates for the district court’s jurisdiction not established firmly in the existing record. The Partnership, which had the burden on the issue, failed to present “competent proof” of its citizenship; it did not present any evidence establishing its citizenship or the citizenship of its several partners. The Partnership submitted a declaration by its employee who stated simply that it “is and was domiciled in Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China.” However, a partnership does not have a “domicile” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Rather, to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, the citizenship of each partner must be established. There is no evidence to support a finding of complete diversity. View "Yancheng Shanda Yuanfeng Equity Investment Partnership v. Wan" on Justia Law

Auto sears can be installed into semi-automatic guns to make them fully automatic. The National Firearms Act defines a machine gun as any gun that can shoot more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger,” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). ATF decided in 1981 to define auto sears as machine guns, even if not installed or owned in conjunction with a compatible rifle. Ruling 81-4 brought auto sears under the Act’s regulatory scheme, which demands that all machine guns be registered. In 1986 the Gun Control Act was amended to make it unlawful for “any person to transfer or possess a machine gun,” 18 U.S.C. 922(o), effectively freezing the number of legal machine guns. Roe purchased his auto sear in 1979 and never registered it.In 2020 Roe sought to force the ATF either to exempt his auto sear from the registration requirements or to permit him to register it. Roe argued that under Ruling 81-4 auto sears that were already manufactured or possessed were exempted permanently from the Firearms Act's requirements. The ATF argued that the Ruling only refers to a retroactive exemption for taxes related to pre-1981 auto sears, that any now-unregistered auto sear is contraband, and that the 1986 machine gun ban means that there is no way to register an auto sear. The district court dismissed Roe’s complaint, reasoning that it lacked authority to issue the requested injunction, and noting that the constitutionality of the statutes had already been upheld. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the claim concerning the Ruling was untimely. Roe’s misinterpretation of Ruling 81-4 and his failure to recall that he owned the auto sear do not support relief. View "Roe v. Dettelbach" on Justia Law

Benner was a 43-year-old high school coach. P.A., 17, hoped to use basketball to obtain a college scholarship. A sexual relationship between the two began after Benner resigned from his position but promised to continue coaching P.A.. Indiana law prohibits anyone who “has or had” a professional relationship with a person under the age of 18 to “use[] or exert[] the person’s professional relationship to engage in sexual intercourse” with that young person. Benner was convicted under Ind. Code 35-42-4-7(n). Indiana courts rejected constitutional challenges and affirmed Benner’s conviction.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Benner’s petition for collateral relief. The statutory definition refers to the defendant’s “ability to exert undue influence over the child.” Benner claimed that a person of ordinary intelligence would not understand how he might use a professional relationship to engage in sexual conduct with a child when that professional relationship has ended. The court stated: It is easy to see how a coach can use that position to groom a youngster for sex, even if the coach plans that the sexual activity will follow the basketball season’s end. While Benner never had an official coaching relation with P.A. after the statutory amendment added the word “had,” Indiana did not charge Benner with conduct that preceded July 2013. No Supreme Court holding “clearly establish[es]” a constitutional problem with the present tense or words such as “use” or “exert”. Compared with some statutes that the Supreme Court has upheld, "35-42-4-7 is a model of precision.” View "Benner v. Carlton" on Justia Law

Alt, age 26, sent a message to a Grindr account operated by an undercover FBI Agent. The account included a picture of a youthful-looking boy and listed his age as 18. The boy responded to Alt after Alt sent two more messages. The two discussed meeting to engage in sexual activity and smoke marijuana. The boy stated that he was only 15 years old, but Alt continued with his plans to meet. Approximately 90 minutes after the boy first responded, FBI agents arrested Alt outside of what Alt believed to be the boy’s home. Alt had a tablet with the Grindr app and messages, an iPhone, and marijuana.Alt was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor and sentenced to the mandatory minimum, 120 months in prison, plus 15 years of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the denial of Alt’s motion to suppress his statements to the FBI. Alt’s alleged invocation—“real quick, on the, uh, appointed lawyer, do you have a lawyer here?”—does not “indicat[e] a certain and present desire to consult with counsel.” The government did not commit a Batson violation in rejecting a Black juror who stated he had family that had suffered sexual abuse. Alt was not deprived of a fair trial because of the government’s statements about the standard of proof during closing arguments. The court also upheld a supervised release requirement that Alt participate in a sex offender treatment program/ View "United States v. Alt" on Justia Law

From 1993-2017, Chicago treated O’Hare Airport aviation security officers as law-enforcement personnel, able to make arrests while employed and carry concealed firearms after retirement. The officers were unarmed and reported to the Commissioner of Aviation rather than the Chief of Police. In 2017 Chicago concluded that they are not law enforcement personnel. The Illinois Labor Relations Board sustained the decision. Neither the union nor any of its members contested that decision in state court. Three aviation security officers filed a federal suit, contending that the reclassification violated the Due Process Clause.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. There is no “fundamental right” to be a law enforcement officer. Although the Chicago Code says that the officers “shall be sworn in as special policemen,” the process due for any violation of state or local law or of a collective-bargaining agreement is the opportunity to sue in state court. The union bypassed that opportunity in 2018. A suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 is not a way to supersede that decision. The collective-bargaining agreement does not promise that aviation security officers will remain law enforcement officials and the correct entity to seek review was the union, not individual members. The court upheld a $40,0000 award of costs. View "Yates v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Smartt had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old runaway (S.S.) and traveled around the country with her while working as a trucker. He took sexually explicit photos of her. When she got pregnant, he returned her to Alton, Illinois. The FBI investigated when S.S. sought medical care at an Alton hospital. Agents obtained a warrant to search Smartt’s East St. Louis home, where they seized electronic devices containing sexually explicit photos of S.S. DNA tests confirmed that Smartt is the father of her child. Smartt sent letters addressed to S.S. and others trying to influence her testimony. Smartt was convicted of producing child pornography and of witness tampering.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Smartt’s claims that the judge erred in referring to S.S. as “the victim” before she testified. During her direct examination, S.S. identified 14 sexually explicit photos Smartt had taken of her. The prosecutor moved to admit only one. The judge asked whether the prosecutor planned to admit the other photos through another witness. The prosecutor said yes. The judge replied: “Just making sure.” The court rejected Smartt’s argument that the comment signaled pro-government bias to the jury. Smartt did not clear the high hurdle of plain-error review; “his arguments are frivolous.” View "United States v. Smartt" on Justia Law

Butler downloaded, distributed, and shared child pornography via internet chat rooms. After tracking him online, investigators obtained a search warrant and seized ten electronic devices from his home, which contained more than 10,000 images and videos of child pornography. Much of this material involved very young children—including babies—and some depicted sadistic and masochistic content. After several years of competency proceedings, Butler pleaded guilty to one count of transporting child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1).The district judge imposed a prison sentence of 188 months, the bottom of the properly calculated 188-235 month Guidelines range. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Butler’s argument that a lower sentence was warranted “in light of his background and mitigating circumstances” as “frivolous on the merits.” The judge considered all of the relevant factors and explained how she weighed those factors. She was aware that Butler suffers from bipolar disorder, personality disorder, and several mood disorders, and was himself the victim of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse as a child. Weighing the need to protect the public, she noted the seriousness of the offense and that Butler has an adult conviction for boarding a school bus while impersonating a police officer and another for child abduction in which he again posed as a police officer and attempted to lure children into his car. View "United States v. Butler" on Justia Law

In 2000, Von Vader pled guilty to distributing methamphetamine in Wisconsin and was sentenced to 270 months’ imprisonment; the court concluded he was a “career offender.” He did not appeal. Von Vader later pled guilty to possessing heroin in prison (in Kansas) and received an additional ten-year sentence. In a 2017 petition (28 U.S.C. 2255) Von Vader argued that intervening Supreme Court precedent indicated that one or more of his previous convictions should not have been counted toward career offender classification. Von Vader’s petition was dismissed as untimely.He then unsuccessfully applied for compassionate release (18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)), contending that the 2000 sentencing error was an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for his release. The Seventh Circuit first held that the fact that Von Vader’s 2000 sentence has expired did not render the application moot because relief would be possible, The court then rejected his claims on the merits. A challenge to a sentence must be resolved by direct appeal or motion under 2255, not by seeking compassionate release. Judicial decisions, even those announcing new law, cannot alone amount to an extraordinary and compelling circumstance, which, under 3582(c)(1), is some new fact about an inmate’s health or family status, or an equivalent post-conviction development, not a purely legal contention for which statutes specify other avenues of relief. Even if the Sentencing Commission’s staff erred in distributing information concerning Van Vader’s right to file a 2255 motion, prisoners do not have a right to legal assistance in initiating collateral relief requests. View "United States v. Von Vader" on Justia Law