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

In 1990, an Ohio state court ordered Jacobs to pay Collin $13,800 in child-support payments. Jacobs subsequently began to receive social security benefits, but, by January 2014, Jacobs’s arrearage totaled $45,356. The state court directed the Commissioner to garnish Jacobs’s social-security payments, 42 U.S.C. 659. In October 2015, the Commissioner mistakenly terminated the garnishment. A year later Collin asked the court to order the Commissioner to resume the garnishment and to pay a lump sum equal to the amount the Commissioner had failed to garnish. The Commissioner voluntarily resumed the garnishment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that Collin’s demand was for “money damages,” so the United States was immune from suit. Section 659(a) provides that moneys payable by[] the United States . . . to any individual . . . shall be subject, in like manner and to the same extent as if the United States . . . were a private person, to withholding . . . to enforce the legal obligation ... to provide child support"; but 5 C.F.R. 581.305(e)(2) states “Neither the United States ... nor any governmental entity shall be liable ... to pay money damages for failure to comply with legal process.” The relief Collin seeks is not enforcement of “the statutory mandate itself” but instead damages for the failure to withhold, for which the government has not waived its immunity. View "Collin v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

Biestek, age 54, worked for most of his life as a carpenter and a construction laborer, frequently transporting scaffolding, panels, and other construction materials around work sites. He completed at least one year of college and received additional vocational training as a bricklayer and carpenter. He stopped working in June 2005, allegedly due to degenerative disc disease, Hepatitis C, and depression. Biestek applied for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in March 2010, alleging a disability onset of October 2009. A Social Security Administration ALJ denied Biestek’s application. The district court remanded because the ALJ had not obtained necessary medical-expert testimony and did not pose a sufficiently specific hypothetical to the vocational expert. The ALJ subsequently issued a partially favorable decision finding Biestek disabled starting in May 2013, on his fiftieth birthday, the point at which the Agency deems an applicant “closely approaching advanced age” and presumptively disabled under 20 C.F.R. 404. The ALJ found that Biestek was “not disabled” before that date. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding the that Biestek did not meet or medically equal the back-pain-related impairment listed at 20 C.F.R. 404. The ALJ properly evaluated the testimony of medical experts and a vocational expert. View "Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

Biestek, age 54, worked for most of his life as a carpenter and a construction laborer, frequently transporting scaffolding, panels, and other construction materials around work sites. He completed at least one year of college and received additional vocational training as a bricklayer and carpenter. He stopped working in June 2005, allegedly due to degenerative disc disease, Hepatitis C, and depression. Biestek applied for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in March 2010, alleging a disability onset of October 2009. A Social Security Administration ALJ denied Biestek’s application. The district court remanded because the ALJ had not obtained necessary medical-expert testimony and did not pose a sufficiently specific hypothetical to the vocational expert. The ALJ subsequently issued a partially favorable decision finding Biestek disabled starting in May 2013, on his fiftieth birthday, the point at which the Agency deems an applicant “closely approaching advanced age” and presumptively disabled under 20 C.F.R. 404. The ALJ found that Biestek was “not disabled” before that date. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding the that Biestek did not meet or medically equal the back-pain-related impairment listed at 20 C.F.R. 404. The ALJ properly evaluated the testimony of medical experts and a vocational expert. View "Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

In 1988, an ALJ awarded Smith supplemental security income (SSI). Smith received benefits until 2004 when he was found to be over the resource limit. Smith filed another SSI application in 2012, alleging additional medical conditions. The application was denied on March 26, 2014. Smith claims that he mailed a request for review on April 24, 2014. On September 21, Smith faxed a correspondence to the Social Security Administration, inquiring about the status of his appeal, with a copy of his request, dated April 24, 2014. A representative informed Smith that his request was not in the “electronic folder,” that if the Council had received the request, it would have mailed a receipt, and that his appeals request was filed as of October 1, 2014. The Council dismissed the request as untimely, finding no good cause to extend the deadline because Smith could not provide evidence that it was sent within the appropriate time. The district court determined that there was no judicial review available because the dismissal did not constitute a final decision and Smith made no colorable constitutional claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that Smith suffered due process violations because his request was timely submitted, different ALJs presided over his hearing and signed his decision, and the ALJ referenced the 1988 decision but failed to attach a copy as an exhibit. View "Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

Pittington worked for Lumberjack for five months before he was fired for supporting his wife (a Lumberjack employee) in her sexual harassment complaint. Before being fired, Pittington was demoted, had his hours reduced, and was made to work in an unheated shack without a chair previously provided for Pittington's medical condition. Pittington sued, alleging that Lumberjack's actions were based on his disability and involvement in his wife’s complaint. Pittington presented evidence of his earnings and of his subsequent employment history and sought $40,632.50 in back pay. The jury found violations of Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act; the court directed a verdict in favor of Lumberjack on Pittington’s ADA claim. The jury declined to award compensatory or punitive damages and awarded $10,000 in back pay. The court declined to award front pay, increase the award, or hold a new trial on damages. Concluding that the 10% interest rate that Pittington requested would create an undue windfall, the court awarded compound prejudgment interest at the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1961(a), 0.66%. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Plaintiffs who prove that they were fired in violation of Title VII are presumptively entitled to back pay for the amount they would have earned had they not been unlawfully terminated and an award of prejudgment interest is nearly always appropriate. A court must grant a new trial on damages when a jury awards a Title VII plaintiff back pay substantially less than the damages to which he is indisputably entitled. View "Pittington v. Great Smoky Mountain Lumberjack Feud, LLC" on Justia Law

Pittington worked for Lumberjack for five months before he was fired for supporting his wife (a Lumberjack employee) in her sexual harassment complaint. Before being fired, Pittington was demoted, had his hours reduced, and was made to work in an unheated shack without a chair previously provided for Pittington's medical condition. Pittington sued, alleging that Lumberjack's actions were based on his disability and involvement in his wife’s complaint. Pittington presented evidence of his earnings and of his subsequent employment history and sought $40,632.50 in back pay. The jury found violations of Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act; the court directed a verdict in favor of Lumberjack on Pittington’s ADA claim. The jury declined to award compensatory or punitive damages and awarded $10,000 in back pay. The court declined to award front pay, increase the award, or hold a new trial on damages. Concluding that the 10% interest rate that Pittington requested would create an undue windfall, the court awarded compound prejudgment interest at the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1961(a), 0.66%. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Plaintiffs who prove that they were fired in violation of Title VII are presumptively entitled to back pay for the amount they would have earned had they not been unlawfully terminated and an award of prejudgment interest is nearly always appropriate. A court must grant a new trial on damages when a jury awards a Title VII plaintiff back pay substantially less than the damages to which he is indisputably entitled. View "Pittington v. Great Smoky Mountain Lumberjack Feud, LLC" on Justia Law

Crabbs, acquitted of voluntary manslaughter but subjected to a DNA swab before his release, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim alleging that the local police violated his Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches. He died before the case could be resolved. Crabbs’s mother and the personal representative of his estate moved to substitute as a party. The district court found that Crabbs’s death extinguished his claim and dismissed the case. The Sixth Circuit reversed. No federal statute or rule says anything about the survivorship of section 1983 claims, but Crabbs’s action qualifies as a “cause[] of action for . . . injuries to the person” under the Ohio survivorship statute and, therefore, outlasts his death. . View "Crabbs v. Scott" on Justia Law

Crabbs, acquitted of voluntary manslaughter but subjected to a DNA swab before his release, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim alleging that the local police violated his Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches. He died before the case could be resolved. Crabbs’s mother and the personal representative of his estate moved to substitute as a party. The district court found that Crabbs’s death extinguished his claim and dismissed the case. The Sixth Circuit reversed. No federal statute or rule says anything about the survivorship of section 1983 claims, but Crabbs’s action qualifies as a “cause[] of action for . . . injuries to the person” under the Ohio survivorship statute and, therefore, outlasts his death. . View "Crabbs v. Scott" on Justia Law

A jeweler and a coin dealer brought facial and as-applied Fourth Amendment challenges to warrantless search provisions in Ohio’s Precious Metals Dealers Act (PMDA). Section 4728.05(A) allows the state to “investigate the business” of licensees and non-licensees with “free access to the books and papers thereof and other sources of information with regard to the[ir] business[es].” Section 4728.06 requires licensees to maintain records, at the licensed premises in a state-approve form, open to inspection by the head of the local police department and, “upon demand,” to show authorities any precious metal within their possession that is listed in these records. Section 4728.07 requires licensees to keep separate records, available to local police “every business day.” Ohio Administrative Code 1301:8-6-03(D), allows the state to inspect “at all times” all sources of information "with regard to the business of the licensee” and requires that licensees maintain their records and inventory at the licensed location. The Sixth Circuit held that the warrantless searches authorized by O.R.C. 4728.05(A) are facially unconstitutional, as not necessary to furthering the state’s interest in recovering stolen jewelry and coins; nor do they serve as adequate warrant substitutes because they are overly broad. The Sixth Circuit upheld sections 4728.06 and 4728.07 as facially constitutional. The state has a substantial interest in regulating precious metals; the provisions are narrowly tailored to address the state’s proffered need to curb the market in stolen precious metals. The court dismissed as-applied challenges to sections 4728.06 and 4728.07 as not ripe. View "Liberty Coins, LLC v. Goodman" on Justia Law

A jeweler and a coin dealer brought facial and as-applied Fourth Amendment challenges to warrantless search provisions in Ohio’s Precious Metals Dealers Act (PMDA). Section 4728.05(A) allows the state to “investigate the business” of licensees and non-licensees with “free access to the books and papers thereof and other sources of information with regard to the[ir] business[es].” Section 4728.06 requires licensees to maintain records, at the licensed premises in a state-approve form, open to inspection by the head of the local police department and, “upon demand,” to show authorities any precious metal within their possession that is listed in these records. Section 4728.07 requires licensees to keep separate records, available to local police “every business day.” Ohio Administrative Code 1301:8-6-03(D), allows the state to inspect “at all times” all sources of information "with regard to the business of the licensee” and requires that licensees maintain their records and inventory at the licensed location. The Sixth Circuit held that the warrantless searches authorized by O.R.C. 4728.05(A) are facially unconstitutional, as not necessary to furthering the state’s interest in recovering stolen jewelry and coins; nor do they serve as adequate warrant substitutes because they are overly broad. The Sixth Circuit upheld sections 4728.06 and 4728.07 as facially constitutional. The state has a substantial interest in regulating precious metals; the provisions are narrowly tailored to address the state’s proffered need to curb the market in stolen precious metals. The court dismissed as-applied challenges to sections 4728.06 and 4728.07 as not ripe. View "Liberty Coins, LLC v. Goodman" on Justia Law