This case involves claims by the EEOC that General Motors and a union local violated Title VII by allowing a union committeeman to subject black supervisors to racial and sexual harassment and by failing to take effective action to stop it. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence that the conduct created a hostile environment or that the union caused discrimination. The court denied both motions, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained. The reasoning rests on evidence of specific incidents of derogatory remarks, threats, and unequal treatment; records of meetings and letters about the behavior; inconsistent or reversed discipline; and the statutory provisions making it unlawful for a union to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against any individual.
This case involves Vanliner Insurance Company suing multiple defendants, including NATA, All Risk, IPF, and various individuals, over an insurance program for trucking companies. Vanliner alleged that defendants misappropriated premium advances, made misrepresentations to obtain a premium payment letter, and improperly demanded unearned premiums after policy cancellations, asserting claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil RICO violations, along with seeking declaratory relief. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing the RICO claim because the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the continuity element of a RICO scheme, while upholding jurisdiction over the defendants as consistent with due process and finding the fraud and conversion claims sufficiently pled. The court also deferred ruling on a state statutory claim under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 304.9-400 pending further briefing on whether the defendants qualified as licensed agents or solicitors.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liabilitycriminal law
This case concerns a claim for Supplemental Security Income child disability benefits that was denied by the Social Security Administration, with the plaintiff seeking judicial review in federal court. The court considered whether the more restrictive disability standards enacted in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act applied to the pending claim. It decided to remand the matter to the Commissioner for redetermination under the new standards and reconsideration of the evidentiary record. The core reasoning was that the Act's effective date provisions expressly apply the amendments to claims not finally adjudicated before enactment if judicial review remains pending, consistent with Supreme Court guidance on statutory retroactivity, and that the agency should apply the correct legal standard in the first instance.
This case is a False Claims Act qui tam action in which the United States intervened against McDonnell Douglas Corporation. The district court addressed multiple discovery motions, including motions to compel Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony and documents, to overrule work-product objections, and for protective orders concerning ex parte contacts with the defendant's current and former employees. The court largely adhered to its prior rulings on interrogatories and documents but modified its approach to the deposition, denying an immediate additional designee while permitting a later one near the end of discovery; it allowed factual inquiries but protected counsel's mental impressions and strategy. On the protective order, the court granted relief in part by barring most ex parte contacts with current employees under state ethics rules, requiring notice for former employees, and rejecting the DOJ regulation purporting to authorize such contacts as exceeding statutory authority.
This case involved Acceptance Insurance Company (AIC), as subrogee of boat seat supplier Springfield Marine, seeking indemnification from SDC, Inc., the manufacturer of the allegedly defective seat base, for an $82,000 settlement paid in a personal injury suit brought by passenger Eyal Nahom after a boat seat casting broke on the Delaware River. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri first confirmed admiralty and diversity jurisdiction, then addressed whether AIC's tender of defense to SDC was timely and adequate. The court ruled for AIC, awarding the full settlement amount plus potential fees, on the grounds that the tender sequence from May to June 1995 provided SDC a reasonable opportunity to assume the defense before the June 26 trial date, that potential liability was clear, and that the settlement was reasonable under the circumstances. SDC's failure to respond or participate did not render the tender untimely or require AIC to prove actual liability.
Darrell Kempcke sued his former employer Monsanto under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Missouri Human Rights Act, alleging age discrimination and retaliation after he discovered internal documents outlining workforce reductions that disproportionately targeted employees over age 40 and was fired for refusing to return copies of those documents. The district court granted Monsanto's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court concluded there was no direct evidence linking the documents to an adverse employment action against Kempcke himself, as his termination resulted from insubordination in retaining and sharing confidential materials and demanding a large severance package. It further held that Kempcke's copying and distribution of the documents did not qualify as protected activity under the ADEA or MHRA retaliation provisions.