The case concerned Monica Tenesaca Delgado, a native and citizen of Ecuador, who petitioned for review of an ICE decision reinstating a prior order of removal against her. Delgado had been removed in 1999 after attempting to enter the United States with fraudulent documents and later reentered without inspection in 2000; she subsequently married a U.S. citizen and applied for adjustment of status and related waivers. The CIS denied her applications, finding her inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) with no available waiver or exception, and notified the ICE, which reinstated the removal order. The court denied the petition, holding that INA § 241(a)(5) renders an alien who reenters illegally after removal ineligible for any relief under the INA, including adjustment of status, and that this bar applies regardless of when the application was filed.
The case involves a New York State Assembly employee who alleged that legislative officials discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex by denying her a promotion to director of budget studies and subjecting her to unequal compensation and working conditions. She brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, the ADEA, and the Equal Pay Act. The court granted summary judgment to some defendants on all claims and to all defendants on the § 1983 and EPA claims, finding those actions protected by legislative immunity. It denied summary judgment on the Title VII and ADEA claims against the remaining defendants but allowed renewal after further discovery on whether the plaintiff qualified as an “employee” and whether those defendants qualified as “employers” or “agents.”
The case concerned commercial disputes over a patented mobile hayfeeder, including alleged breaches of exclusive sales and royalty agreements, trademark and trade name infringement, conversion of property, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff originally filed in New York state court, but the defendants removed the action to federal district court, citing patent registration and Lanham Act trademark claims as bases for federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the complaint raised only state-law claims without diversity of citizenship. The court held that none of the claims arose under federal law in a manner conferring original jurisdiction, because federal patent or trademark rights were not essential elements of the causes of action pleaded, and therefore granted remand to state court while dismissing the patent-related claims over which jurisdiction would have been exclusive.
This case concerned plaintiff Dorlesca Salanger's termination from her position as a customer service agent with U.S. Air (and its predecessors) after an internal investigation into suspected misappropriation of funds led to her arrest on grand larceny charges that were later dismissed by a grand jury; the airline refused her request for reinstatement. Salanger alleged breach of an implied employment contract, based on oral statements during training and company personnel policies providing grievance procedures for "for cause" terminations, that limited the employer's right to fire her only for just cause, as well as a violation of New York Executive Law § 296(16) prohibiting adverse employment actions based on dismissed criminal accusations. After a bench trial, the court applied New York at-will employment doctrine and the standards from Weiner v. McGraw-Hill for establishing contractual just-cause protections, reviewed the employment history, grievance process, and evidence of the investigation, and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on the contract and statutory claims.
This case involved a First Amendment challenge by the Knolls Action Project, an anti-nuclear advocacy group, to the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory's revocation of permission for the group to distribute leaflets on KAPL property near employee access roads. After a bench trial, the court upheld the complete ban on non-business leafletting by any outside group. The core reasoning was that the relevant portions of the KAPL property constituted a nonpublic forum, so content-neutral restrictions on access were permissible if reasonable in light of the facility's security needs, liability concerns, and classified nuclear research mission, as supported by precedents such as Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n.
The case involved Hassan Kadah seeking a refund of a 100% penalty assessment paid under I.R.C. § 6672 for Custom Technology Corporation's unpaid withholding and FICA taxes covering the third and fourth quarters of 1976 and the first quarter of 1977. Kadah had purchased a controlling interest in CTC, assumed the role of chairman and later president with check-signing authority, and directed corporate operations starting in October 1976. The court determined that Kadah was not a responsible person during the third quarter of 1976 but became one thereafter and willfully failed to ensure payment of the taxes for the subsequent periods, leading to judgment in his favor only as to the third-quarter assessment and for the government on the remaining claims.