George F. Gunn jr

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

healthcare

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, a police officer sued his city employer and officials after a mandatory fitness test led to progressive discipline and no promotions due to his asymptomatic coronary disease, claiming retaliation and discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and disability under the ADEA, Title VII, ADA, and related state laws, plus intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium for his spouse. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The discrimination and retaliation claims were time-barred because the action was refiled more than 90 days after receipt of right-to-sue letters following a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which does not toll the limitations period. The emotional distress claim failed because the employer's conduct was not extreme and outrageous under Missouri law and lacked evidence of medically significant distress, while the loss of consortium claim could not stand without a valid underlying claim.

labor & employmentcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case was a products liability action brought by a minor plaintiff through his father against Ford Motor Company, claiming that defective seat belts in a 1990 Ford Festiva caused the child's facial injuries in a 1994 rear-end collision. After the vehicle was sold for salvage and the seat belts were later discarded, Ford moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiff's failure to preserve the evidence. The court granted the motion, ruling that the destruction prejudiced Ford's ability to defend by preventing examination for defects or evidence of whether the belts were worn or used properly. The decision rested on the federal district court's inherent authority to impose sanctions for spoliation, with the court finding that no lesser sanction would adequately address the unfairness to the defendant.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Joyce Moebus sued her former employer, OB-GYN Associates, Inc., alleging she was terminated based on her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Missouri Human Rights Act. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not subject to the ADEA because it employed fewer than twenty employees. The court determined that the company's physician/shareholders were not employees under the ADEA, as their roles resembled partners in a partnership with significant control and ownership, and certain technicians and a dietician were independent contractors rather than employees. Applying common-law agency principles from Supreme Court precedent, the court concluded the defendant did not meet the statutory definition of an employer and dismissed the federal claim while declining jurisdiction over the state claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns the approval of a consent decree under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for the cleanup of the Missouri Electrical Works Site in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, which was contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from transformer repairs. The United States and the State of Missouri sued numerous potentially responsible parties (PRPs), and a group of settling PRPs agreed to a consent decree requiring them to perform remedial actions, pay costs, and establish financial assurances, while non-settling intervenors objected claiming the settlement was unfair. The court granted the motion to re-enter the consent decree after finding it procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable in its remedies and cost allocations, and consistent with CERCLA's goals of accountability and prompt cleanup.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed in Missouri state court by subscribers to Blue Cross health plans against the company, its for-profit subsidiary Right Choice, Healthlink, and various officers. The complaint alleged that defendants wrongfully transferred hundreds of millions in not-for-profit assets to the for-profit entity, overpaid for Healthlink to reduce distributable assets, and engaged in an illegal kickback scheme, seeking remedies including removal of directors, restitution, and injunctive relief. Defendants removed the case to federal court asserting ERISA and FEHBA preemption over claims tied to employee welfare benefit plans. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, concluding that the claims concerned corporate officers' duties to not-for-profit subscribers rather than fiduciary duties under ERISA plans and did not sufficiently relate to plan administration to support preemption.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Brown v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., the plaintiff, a former employee over age 53, sued his employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Missouri Human Rights Act, claiming his layoff was motivated by age rather than a legitimate reduction in force. The plaintiff had been transferred to a new role, received a negative performance review, and was selected for termination based on the lowest ranking among 144 comparable employees using factors such as technical capability, skills application, personal commitment, and team building. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to show the reduction-in-force explanation or his low assessment score was a pretext for discrimination, as statistical or circumstantial evidence of broader bias did not undermine the specific, performance-based rationale applied to his case.

labor & employmentcivil rights

James Alton was convicted by a jury of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and using or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). He filed a § 2255 motion to vacate his convictions, later supplementing it after the Supreme Court's Bailey decision, which held that "use" requires active employment of a firearm rather than mere storage or possession nearby. The court granted the motion to vacate the firearm conviction and sentence because the evidence showed only that weapons were found concealed in a closet and on a dresser while Alton was absent, conceding that Bailey applied retroactively without procedural bars. The court further ordered resentencing on the drug conviction to consider a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for weapon possession and denied Alton's motion for immediate release or bond pending resentencing.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who sued his employer, United Parcel Service, for employment discrimination but had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy without disclosing the potential claim as an asset. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing because the claim belonged to the bankruptcy trustee and that judicial estoppel should bar the suit due to the nondisclosure. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the action in his own name, as only the trustee could assert estate property under bankruptcy law. However, it denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and referred the case to the bankruptcy court, reasoning that the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings meant creditors' interests should be considered and that estoppel arguments could be reasserted there if appropriate.

procedurelabor & employment

This case involved a dispute under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) between Fort Zumwalt School District and the parents of Nicholas Clynes, a student with learning disabilities. The parents had placed Nicholas at the private Churchill School after disagreeing with the district's individualized education programs (IEPs) for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years and sought reimbursement for tuition and related costs. The district sued for judicial review of a state administrative decision that had partially awarded reimbursement, while the parents had counterclaimed (later dismissed) on additional statutory grounds. Following a bench trial, the court affirmed the administrative award of reimbursement for 1991-92, reversed the denial for 1992-93, and entered judgment for the parents in the amount of $39,610, finding that the district's proposed placements failed to provide a free appropriate public education in a sufficiently structured environment while the Churchill School was an appropriate placement. The decision rested on detailed factual comparisons of the district's IEPs, which did not match the specialized methods or segregated setting offered by the private school, against the requirements of IDEA.

civil rights

In this case, plaintiff Linda Humes sued her former employer, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, under section 510 of ERISA, alleging that the company terminated her employment to prevent her from becoming eligible for a Minimum Early Retirement Benefit under its retirement plan. The defendant moved for summary judgment, citing a company-wide workforce reduction due to declining defense business and the plaintiff's lowest ranking among secretaries in a skills assessment. The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not produced evidence sufficient to show the employer's intent to interfere with her benefits or that the stated reasons for her termination were pretextual. The core reasoning focused on the legitimate business need for downsizing, the plaintiff's fully vested status at termination, and the absence of any causal link between her proximity to eligibility and the layoff decision.

labor & employment

This case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which relator Daniel G. O'Keefe alleged that McDonnell Douglas Corporation submitted false claims to the government by inflating estimated labor costs on defense contracts including the A-12, HARPOON, and SLAM contracts, and by mischarging labor hours across multiple government contracts such as the C-17 and F-15. The government intervened and filed an amended complaint focused on those allegations, while the relator sought to pursue three additional counts from his earlier complaint for retaliatory discharge and emotional distress. The court granted the government's motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint and allowed the relator to file a Third Amended Complaint to detail his separate claims. The court reasoned that the FCA expressly permits a relator to continue as a party after government intervention under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c), with no statutory bar to pursuing claims on which the government did not intervene, and the government did not object to the relator proceeding.

business & regulatoryprocedurecriminal law

In Bell v. United States, the petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 1991 conviction and sentence for using a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) in connection with a drug trafficking offense, after he had pled guilty to possessing cocaine and keeping a shotgun under his bed. The district court granted the motion, set aside the firearm conviction, and ordered the petitioner's release, while denying the government's request to enhance the remaining drug sentence. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Bailey v. United States narrowed the meaning of "use" under § 924(c)(1) to active employment of a firearm, which the petitioner's admitted conduct of storage did not satisfy, and rejected the government's arguments that the new interpretation was non-retroactive or that the petitioner was procedurally barred from raising the claim.

criminal lawguns

This case was a federal declaratory judgment action brought by Federal Insurance Company against its insureds (Sprigg Lane Investment Corporation and Augusta Investment Corporation) and the plaintiffs from a related state tort suit, seeking a ruling that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify under a pollution exclusion in an excess liability policy. The underlying facts involved a 1992 carbon monoxide incident at a Missouri residence that caused deaths and injuries, leading to a state court tort judgment against the insureds and subsequent garnishment proceedings. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for abstention in light of the pending state proceedings. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that even assuming personal jurisdiction existed, abstention was appropriate under the discretionary standards of Wilton v. Seven Falls Co. and Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. because the state court could adjudicate all issues, no federal law was involved, and a federal declaration would serve no useful purpose and interfere with the state litigation.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiffs who had volunteered for Ross Perot's 1992 presidential petition effort in Missouri suing Perot's representatives and credit-information companies after their personal data was obtained during a background check. Plaintiffs alleged that Datalink and TRW violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by furnishing address updates without a permissible purpose and without adequate procedures to limit such disclosures. The district court granted summary judgment to Datalink and TRW. It held that the limited identifying information supplied did not meet the statutory definition of a consumer report because it contained no data bearing on creditworthiness or the other factors listed in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d), and therefore the FCRA's restrictions did not apply.

business & regulatoryprocedure