Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Michael worked as a Troy patrol officer since 1987. In 2000-2001 he had partially successful surgeries to remove a non-cancerous brain tumor and returned to the force. In 2007, Michael’s then-wife Jamie found a box of empty steroid vials—some labeled for veterinary use and all belonging to Michael—which she gave to then-Chief of Police, Craft. Michael conducted a two-year campaign to get them back, secretly recording and suing Craft. Michael secretly recorded Jamie during marriage-counseling sessions and family gatherings, and asked the prosecutor to charge Jamie with perjury. The new Chief, Mayer, received reports that Michael had accompanied a cocaine dealer to drug deals. Mayer suspended Michael from active duty pending investigation, but tabled that investigation when Michael needed another brain surgery. After Michael’s surgeon cleared him for work, the city requested a psychological evaluation. A neuropsychologist concluded that Michael “may be a threat to himself and others.” The city placed Michael on unpaid leave. Another neuropsychologist pronounced him fit for duty. A third found him unfit. Two others, who reviewed Michael’s file (but did not examine him), concluded that he could return to work. Michael saw a professor of neuropsychology at the University of Michigan, who concluded that Michael has weak “executive functioning,” and that “[s]afety with use of weapons and high-speed driving would be in question.” Michael kept that report to himself and sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the city, holding that Michael was not qualified for the position of patrol officer. View "Michael v. City of Troy Police Dep't" on Justia Law

Slusher, an orthopedic surgeon and military reservist, worked at Heritage, a small hospital in Shelbyville, Tennessee, through a staffing service, on 30-day assignments beginning on July 20, 2010. Slusher was offered, but did not accept, a permanent position. He agreed to a one-year contract in January 2011, which could be terminated by either party for any reason upon 90 days’ notice or by Heritage, effective immediately, with 90 days’ pay instead of notice. It did not provide for renewal or extension. Heritage knew that he could be called up for deployment. On May 4, 2011, Slusher received orders. Before Slusher’s deployment, Heritage informed him that it had interviewed another physician for the orthopedic surgeon position. Heritage granted Slusher military leave. He reported for active duty on June 10. While he was in Iraq, Heritage informed Slusher that it was nearing a contract with Mosley. Slusher later signed a termination agreement, specifying that his employment would end on October 26. Slusher returned to Heritage, where Mosley had begun working, on October 3, and worked there until October 26, 2011. Slusher filed a complaint with the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service. After the Department of Labor closed its investigation, Slusher filed suit, claiming discrimination under and violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. 4301-35 and breach of contract. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants on each claim. View "Slusher v. Shelbyville Hosp. Corp." on Justia Law

Waskiewicsz suffers from type-1 diabetes, major depression, and gender identity disorder She worked as a product design engineer for Ford from 1990 until October, 2010, when she suffered “a debilitating emotional breakdown.” In December, after her father found her barricaded in her house, she sought long-term disability benefits under Ford’s Plan, governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. Under the plan: An Active Employee whose employment is terminated . . . shall cease to be eligible for Benefits as of the earlier of: (a) the date the Employee has been notified; or (b) the day prior to the date of such termination (in the case of retroactive terminations) . .... An employee is required to notify the Claim Processor ... if the employee is absent for more than five (5) consecutive Workdays.” She did not give notice within the five-day period and was, apparently, terminated in the interim. UniCare concluded that she did not qualify for benefits. The Sixth Circuit reversed. On remand, Waskiewicz must be given the opportunity to show that her alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the Plan was due to the very disability for which she seeks benefits. View "Waskiewicz v. UniCare Life & Health Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Silver Bait operates, on 750 acres in Tennessee, housing, growing, and packaging bait worms for sale to retailers. Silver Bait imports baby worms from Europe and feeds and grows them in seven concrete structures, 540 feet long and 50 feet wide, with a 10-foot wide tractor driveway down the center, with worm beds on either side. Durant grows his own corn in to ensure the quality of the feed. Workers send corn silage through a grinder and combine it with peat moss, lime, and water. Silver Bait also makes its own customized bait cups using an injection-molding machine. Believing its employees fell within a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption for agricultural workers, Silver Bait did not pay overtime. In 2010 the Department of Labor issued a report finding Silver Bait’s employees exempt, ordering Silver Bait to pay overtime for one four-week period when the company acted as a wholesaler, importing worms and immediately reselling them to retailers. After obtaining consent forms from other workers, employees filed a private action under 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The Sixth Circuit affirmed a declaratory judgment in Silver Bait’s favor. Although not a specifically enumerated farming activity, there is little to distinguish Silver Bait from a traditional farm other than the unfamiliarity of worm farming. View "Barks v. Silver Bait LLC" on Justia Law

Max Trucking transports freight throughout the United States, maintaining a staff of six dispatchers at its Michigan headquarters. The dispatchers find jobs on websites and contact one of 76 truck drivers, including about 20 drivers based in Michigan, to offer the load to that driver. The Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) requires employers to maintain worker’s compensation insurance coverage for their employees. Liberty Mutual issued Max a policy, which it renewed annually for several years. In 2011, Liberty audited Max and determined that 16–18 Michigan-based drivers, who leased trucks from Max through a lease-to-buy program, were employees, not independent contractors, and increased Max’s policy premium. Max has not paid the premium increase and sought a declaratory judgment that drivers operating under the lease-to-buy program are not employees but are independent contractors under the WDCA. Liberty filed a counterclaim, seeking unpaid premiums totaling $101,592. The Sixth Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual, agreeing that the truckers are employees, despite evidence that that they may decline to work, can incur a financial loss, made a significant financial investment in the vehicle purchase, and receive all tax deductions and depreciation of the vehicles on their personal tax returns. View "Max Trucking, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

In 2004, Akron administered promotional examinations for firefighters for the ranks of Lieutenant and Captain. Akron firefighters who took the examinations, but were not promoted, filed suit, alleging that the promotional process disparately impacted firefighters over the age of 40 in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621, and Ohio Revised Code 4112.02, .14, and .99 and that the Lieutenant promotional process adversely impacted African-American applicants, and the Captain promotional process adversely impacted Caucasian candidates in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e., and Ohio Revised Code 4112.02(A). A jury found that the two promotional processes adversely impacted applicants over the age of 40, and that the exams and promotional processes were not justified by business necessity. The district court entered an award of back pay of $616,217.75, entered a permanent injunction, and appointed a court monitor. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the liability judgment, reversed the back-pay award, remanded for reassignment to a different district judge and a new trial on the issue of back pay, and modified the order to limit the court monitor’s involvement to one promotional cycle. View "Howe v. City of Akron" on Justia Law

The Iron Workers negotiated a contract that required JD Steel to make contributions, on behalf of its employees, to the pension funds for local unions in which the employees performed work, amounting $10.00 for every hour that a JD employee worked in the local union's territory. Later, the Iron Workers negotiated a similar contract with Davis Rebar, except that, rather than require contributions to the local unions’ pension funds, the contract required Davis to make identical contributions to the local unions’ defined-contribution plans, such as a 401(k) plan. In 2013, JD worked on a parking garage at Cleveland’s Fairview Hospital while Davis worked on a garage at University Hospital. Both jobs were within the territory of the Local 17 Iron Workers Union. Davis apparently used equipment bearing JD’s name and logo. The companies shared a foreman and supervisors. The pension plan sued under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), alleging that JD and Davis are actually the same company, so that Davis is bound by JD’s contract and must make additional payments. Each company has made all payments required by its individual contract. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal. Reasoning that the same association of unions negotiated and signed both agreements, the court declined to set aside the association’s judgment regarding its members’ best interests. View "Bd. Trs. Local 17 Iron Workers Pension Fund v. Harris Davis Rebar LLC" on Justia Law

In 2000 and 2002 the FDA issued warnings to Caraco, a Michigan pharmaceutical manufacturer, stating that failure to correct violations promptly could result in enforcement action without further notice. After follow-ups in 2005, the FDA sought a definitive timeline for corrective actions. The FDA issued notices of objectionable conditions in 2006, 2007, and 2008. A consultant audited Caraco’s facilities and stated that it was “likely that FDA will initiate some form of seizure action.” Caraco executives thought the consultant “alarmist.” Later, the FDA issued a formal warning, determining that Caraco products were adulterated and that its manufacturing, processing, and holding policies did not conform to regulations and noting its poor compliance history. The letter stated that failure to promptly correct the violations could result in legal action without further notice, including seizure. A new consultant warned of likely enforcement action. Caraco followed some of its suggestions. In 2009, Caraco issued a nationwide drug recall, constituting “a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.” The FDA filed a complaint, served Caraco, and seized products. Days later, Caraco began a mass layoff, indicating that it did not “reasonably foresee" the FDA action. A certified class of former Caraco employees alleged that Caraco violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, 29 U.S.C. 2101, by failing to provide 60 days notice. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that the FDA action was not an unforeseeable business circumstance that would excuse WARN Act compliance. View "Calloway v. Caraco Pharma. Lab., Ltd." on Justia Law

Sergeant Boulton, working in the county jail, was a union leader. The union initiated mandatory contract arbitration with the Sheriff’s Office, at which Undersheriff Swanson testified regarding Taser, firearm, and CPR training. Boulton testified that Swanson had misrepresented the degree of training. The next day, Boulton was instructed to wear his uniform or business attire to subsequent arbitrations. When he later wore a blazer and golf shirt, he was investigated for failing to follow a direct order. Soon after, there was a short power outage at the jail. Boulton was told that there would be an investigation of his actions during the outage. Boulton was notified that subordinates had brought complaints against him and that the department was starting a new investigation. Boulton was “forbidden to inquire with any witnesses or investigators.” Boulton admits that he asked his subordinates for details about the investigation. Boulton was suspended without pay for several days and demoted for creating a “hostile” and “unprofessional” environment for subordinates and for making derogatory comments to female detainees. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the county. Boulton’s speech at the arbitration was protected by the First Amendment, but he did not show that the demotion and suspension resulted from a policy against criticism, rather than his other “extensive misconduct.” View "Boulton v. Swanson" on Justia Law

When the plant closed, plaintiffs retired under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that provided that the employer would continue health insurance and that coverage an employee had at the time of retirement or termination at age 65 or older (other than discharge for cause) “shall be continued thereafter provided that suitable arrangements for such continuation[] can be made… In the event… benefits … [are] not practicable … the Company in agreement with the Union will provide new benefits and/or coverages as closely related as possible and of equivalent value." In 2011 TRW (employer’s successor) stated that it would discontinue group health care coverage beginning in 2012, but would be providing “Health Reimbursement Accounts” (HRAs) and would make a one-time contribution of $15,000 for each eligible retiree and eligible spouse in 2012 and, in 2013, would provide a $4,800 credit to the HRAs for each eligible party. TRW did not commit to funding beyond 2013. Plaintiffs sued, claiming that the change violated the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. The court entered summary judgment, ruling that the CBAs established a commitment to lifetime health care benefits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, but subsequently vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in M & G Polymers. View "United Steel v. Kelsey-Hayes Co." on Justia Law