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

REX was unsuccessful in privately obtaining easements from defendants to install an interstate natural-gas pipeline authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under a coal mine in Ohio and had to condemn the easement, 15 U.S.C. 717f. REX built the pipeline and gas began flowing in 2009. Defendants believed that safety concerns regarding the pipeline would delay its mining permits and accelerated its mining, resulting in unanticipated costs associated with inefficient mining techniques. In valuing the easement, the district court determined that the defendants suffered no compensable damages to its coalmining operations as a result of the pipeline. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that FERC found as a matter of fact that the pipeline would not compromise mining and that the two operations could co-exist. View "Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC v. 4.895 Acres of Land, More or Less" on Justia Law

Danou is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Iraq. He, his family, and his trust own several real estate ventures, including Southfield, Triple Creek, and Danou Technical. In 2006 Southfield borrowed $13 million from Flagstar Bank. Danou, Triple Creek and Danou Technical guaranteed the loan; Southfield and Triple Creek put up collateral. Southfield did not repay the loan in full when it came due in 2009 and the parties restructured the loan. In 2011, Chambless, a Flagstar employee charged with work on the bank’s “troubled assets” and loans, investigated Southfield’s finances, although Southfield claims it was current on all of its restructured obligations. Chambless told Danou that Flagstar “would under no circumstances ever consider an application” to refinance the loan again. The following year, when Danou requested an extension, the bank refused to provide an application, despite Danou’s offer of additional collateral and his wife’s guarantee. The district court dismissed a claim of national origin discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Between the obvious alternative explanation for the denial and purposeful, invidious discrimination a court will not infer discrimination. View "16630 Southfield Ltd. P'ship v. Flagstar Bank, FSB" on Justia Law

A three-year-old child found a cigarette lighter in his father’s truck and used it to loosen a button on his shirt. His shirt caught fire and he spent three weeks in the hospital, where he was treated for second and third degree burns to his face and chest and underwent several skin graft surgeries. A BIC cigarette lighter was found at the scene and delivered to the police. Who found the lighter, and where, is unclear. In a suit against the manufacturer, the jury found the lighter was not defective or unreasonably dangerous in a way that causally contributed to the injuries. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court allowed inadmissible evidence of the failure of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to take action concerning the lighter and that the court erred by permitting BIC’s counsel to argue that the parents were to blame and refusing to instruct the jury to disregard such arguments. The court noted that the lighter admitted in evidence is presumed to be the one that caused the fire; it was worn, and the child safety guard had been removed. View "Cummins v. Bic USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Michigan anti-begging statute, Mich. Comp. Laws 900, has existed since at least 1929 and provides that “[a] person is a disorderly person if the person is any of the following: ... (h) A person found begging in a public place.” A person convicted under section 750.167(1)(h) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both. The Grand Rapids police recorded 409 incidents of police enforcing the anti-begging law from 2008–2011. Plaintiffs, two homeless adults, were arrested. One was holding signs saying: “Cold and Hungry, God Bless” and “Need Job, God Bless.” The other, a veteran, needed money for bus fare, and asked a person on the street: “Can you spare a little change?” The Sixth Circuit affirmed that the law was unconstitutional. Begging is a form of solicitation that the First Amendment protects and the statute cannot withstand facial attack because it prohibits a substantial amount of solicitation, but allows other solicitation based on content. View "Speet v. Schuette" on Justia Law

The Contributor produces a street newspaper to educate people about homelessness and poverty and helps develop job skills for homeless and formerly homeless persons, employing them as street vendors. Two such vendors were cited for attempting to sell issues of the newspaper on the streets and sidewalks of Brentwood, Tennessee, under an ordinance that provided that no person could use or occupy any portion of the city street, alley, sidewalk or the public right-of-way to sell any goods or materials. The city then revised the ordinance to provide that it should not “be construed as prohibiting the sale or distribution of newspapers, magazines, periodicals, handbills, flyers or similar materials, except that: (1) Such activity shall be prohibited on any portion of any street within the city. (2) Such materials shall not be handed to the occupant of any motor vehicle that is on a street, nor shall any action be taken which is intended or reasonably calculated to cause the vehicle occupant to hand anything to the person selling or distributing the materials." The district court upheld the revised ordinance as leaving open adequate alternative channels of communication. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "The Contributor v. City of Brentwood" on Justia Law

Adamov immigrated to the U.S. in 1992 and began working at the bank in 1998. He became a district manager in Louisville, with an excellent employment record. In 2005, the bank hired Hartnack as Vice-Chairman, three levels up from Adamov. During the few times Hartnack and Adamov interacted, Hartnack made statements that Adamov found offensive, concerning his accent and being an immigrant. While giving a speech, Hartnack made the comment “I was talking to my managers and they looked at me like I was speaking Russian.” Adamov believed that he had not been promoted because Hartnack harbored animus based on Adamov’s national origin. Adamov spoke to his direct supervisor, who spoke with Hartnack and assured Adamov that Hartnack was not prejudiced against him. The bank subsequently investigated Adamov, concluded that his loans violated its ethics policy, and terminated his employment. The ethics policy went into effect after the date of the loan and no prior policy was introduced at trial. The district court dismissed Adamov’s retaliation claim, based on failure to exhaust remedies and entered summary judgment that Adamov’s discrimination claim failed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to the discrimination claim. The retaliation claim should not have been dismissed because the administrative-exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional. View " Adamov v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

Woodruff pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment as an armed career criminal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court improperly calculated his sentence and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the Presentence Investigation Report’s finding that Woodruff’s conviction for facilitation was a controlled-substance offense. The Tennessee conviction for facilitation of the sale of cocaine was a “controlled substance offense.” View "United States v. Woodruff" on Justia Law

Lindsey filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition for bankruptcy relief. His reorganization plan identified 12 classes of creditors. Lindsey sought to retain most of his assets, including several pieces of real estate, so three banks, all impaired creditors, opposed the plan, 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(1) as not complying with the absolute priority rule, which bars debtors from retaining any property unless the reorganization plan pays all dissenting creditors in full. Lindsey argued that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 abrogated the absolute priority rule with respect to individual debtors. The bankruptcy court refused to confirm the plan. The district court affirmed. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Rejection of a reorganization plan did not create a final appealable order. View "Lindsey v. Pinnacle Nat'l Bank" on Justia Law

Retirees, dependents of retirees, and the union filed a class action suit against the retirees’ former employer, M&G, after M&G announced that they would be required to make health care contributions. The district court found M&G liable for violating a labor agreement and an employee welfare benefit plan and ordered reinstatement of the plaintiffs to the current versions of the benefits plans they were enrolled in until 2007, to receive health care for life without contributions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court properly concluded that the retirees’ right to lifetime healthcare vested upon retirement after concluding that documents, indicating agreement between the union and the employers to “cap” health benefits and several “side” letters were not a part of the applicable labor agreements. View "Tackett v. M&G Polymers USA, LLC," on Justia Law

While employed as an electrical line worker, Waldo was subjected routinely to sexual harassment. Her coworkers displayed sexually explicit materials in the workplace, locked her in a porta-potty, ridiculed her for bringing a purse to work, demanded that she “pee like a man” and clean up her male coworkers’ tobacco spit, ostracized and ignored her on job sites and during trainings, and referred to her using gender-specific demeaning language. Waldo sued, bringing six federal and state-law discrimination claims, and a state-law tort claim. Although a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the employer, the district court granted Waldo a new trial on her Title VII hostile-work-environment claim, finding that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. After a second trial, the jury found in favor of Waldo, and the district court awarded her attorney fees and costs as a prevailing plaintiff. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the granting a new trial and the award of attorney fees and costs. There was clear testimony that the employer was aware of Waldo’s complaints, but that no formal response or investigation was undertaken, contrary to company policies that “[c]omplaints will be fully investigated.” View "Waldo v. Consumers Energy Co." on Justia Law