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

In 2013, OHL reassigned Smith, an eight-year employee, who regularly discussed Union business with co-workers, distributed Union materials, tried to convince her co-workers to sign Union cards, and wore pro-Union apparel to work. Jones, an OHL janitor, was less outspoken about the Union but talked with his pro-Union colleagues and, at least once, raised issues about the Union in a meeting with OHL management. Jones was involved in an altercation between management and a pro-Union employee. Before being fired in 2013, Jones had received a final written warning for safety violations; he was fired after another incident. During 2013, 10 employees requested their Union cards back and interest in Union meetings dropped. The regional NLRB filed an administrative complaint against OHL, claiming that it had committed unfair labor practices in an attempt to stifle Union support and obtained a temporary injunction under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(j), returning Smith to her old position and reinstating Jones. An ALJ subsequently rejected the unfair labor practice complaints because Smith was receiving the same pay and benefits and her new job was not more onerous. OHL employees unionized in 2013. In 2016, a federal court ordered OHL to begin the collective bargaining process. The Sixth Circuit upheld the injunction with respect to Smith and vacated with respect to Jones. View "McKinney v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC" on Justia Law

Harper shot his brother and pled guilty in state court to reckless aggravated assault, Tenn. Code 39-13- 102(a)(1)(B). Three years later, Harper was caught selling drugs while possessing a loaded pistol. He pled guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g). The court calculated Harper’s Guidelines range to be 46-57 months’ imprisonment. The government argued that Harper’s range should be 84-105 months because Harper’s prior Tennessee conviction was for a felony “crime of violence,” U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), 4B1.2(a). The government cited the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision, Voisine v. United States. The court refused to increase the sentencing range, sentencing Harper to 46 months. The Sixth Circuit vacated, acknowledging that, post-Voisine, offenses that require only recklessness can be crimes of violence under U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a) and that, under its precedent, violation of Tenn. Code 39-13-102(a)(1)(B) is a crime of violence for purposes of 4B1.2(a). The court then explained the error in its own precedent: Voisine dealt with only “the use . . . of physical force” while section 4B1.2 requires “requires not merely a volitional application of force, but a volitional application “against the person of another.” An actor who is only reckless as to whether his force injures another does not commit a “crime of violence” as defined by 4B1.2; “a desire to simplify our own application of the law is hardly good enough reason to double a man’s Guidelines range.” View "United States v. Harper" on Justia Law

Gatlin, an employee of Hopkins County Coal (HCC), was terminated from his job after refusing to perform a pre-shift examination that he believed entitled him to extra pay. Gatlin filed a discrimination complaint with the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). After forwarding the complaint to HCC and making an initial request to interview HCC managerial employees, the MSHA sent a letter requesting to review documents that it claimed were necessary to properly evaluate Gatlin’s claim. Following a series of letters and a site visit, HCC refused to produce Gatlin’s personnel file and the personnel files of other employees at the mine who faced discipline during the previous five years for engaging in the conduct that led to Gatlin’s termination. An MSHA investigator issued citations and an order to HCC under sections 104(a) and (b)1 of the Mine Safety and Health Act, 30 U.S.C. 814. An ALJ with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission upheld the citations and order. The Commission and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting HCC’s claims that the MSHA exceeded its authority under the Mine Act by demanding company personnel documents without first identifying any basis for a discrimination claim and the MSHA’s demands to inspect the records violated HCC’s Fourth Amendment rights. View "Hopkins County Coal v. Mine Safety and Health Administration" on Justia Law

For almost 40 years, Honeywell (or its predecessors) operated a manufacturing plant in Fostoria, Ohio. Many union workers, including Watkins and Ulicny, spent most of their working years at the plant. They retired at a time when Honeywell promised in a collective-bargaining agreement that it would pay for their health insurance. When the final agreement expired in 2011, Honeywell did not renew it. It sold the plant and, later, stopped paying for its retirees’ healthcare. Those retirees filed suit. The district court found that Honeywell’s promise to pay for healthcare ended when the agreement expired and dismissed the suit. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The agreement promises healthcare “for the duration of this Agreement,” and “this promise means exactly that: Honeywell’s obligation to pay for its Fostoria retirees’ healthcare ended when the agreement expired.” View "Watkins v. Honeywell International, Inc." on Justia Law

Michigan mandates that school-age children be vaccinated before entering the public school system but offers exemptions for certain medical and nonmedical reasons. To get an exemption, a parent must visit a local health department. A devout Catholic, Nikolao, sought a religious waiver for her children. At the mandatory meeting, Wayne County nurses tried to disabuse Nikolao of the notion that her faith prohibited vaccination. The Religious Waiver Note contained a quote falsely attributed to Pope Benedict XVI stating that parents who chose not to vaccinate their children “would be in more proximate cooperation with evil" because of the life-saving nature of vaccines. Nikolao received the waiver. On the compliance form, the nurses wrote that Nikolao objected because she wanted her “child to have natural immunity.” Nikolao wanted the form to report her religious objection . She sued, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of the First Amendment. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. The state is merely voicing its own opinion on religious objections to prevent the outbreak of communicable diseases. This does not constitute excessive entanglement for an Establishment Clause challenge. Nikolao has not presented any facts to suggest that the state has coerced her religious practices and did not suffer an injury-in-fact under the Free Exercise Clause; she did not have standing to pursue that claim. View "Nikolao v. Lyon" on Justia Law

In the 1980s, merchant marine plaintiffs filed asbestos-liability suits against ship-owner and manufacturer defendants in the Northern District of Ohio. That court ruled, in 1989, that it lacked personal jurisdiction over many of the defendants. Instead of dismissing those defendants, the court stated that if a defendant did not wish to be transferred, it could “waive the in personam jurisdiction problem” by filing an answer. Some did so. In 1990, the court ordered the transfer of some cases to scattered venues. Those transfers did not occur. Certain defendants sought to appeal the order, specifically stating that they did not waive jurisdiction. The court did not certify the interlocutory appeal. Eventually, the cases were consolidated into multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Certain defendants objected, arguing that they had been “strong-armed” into submitting to Ohio jurisdiction. The Pennsylvania court held that the N.D. of Ohio lacked personal jurisdiction over the relevant defendants and that those defendants had not waived or forfeited their personal jurisdiction defense. Thousands of parties were dismissed. Ten plaintiffs appealed the Pennsylvania’s decision as to 19 defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Pennsylvania district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the ship-owner defendants had not waived their personal jurisdiction defense by filing answers in the N.D. of Ohio and had no authority to transfer the cases to jurisdictions that did have jurisdiction. View "Kalama v. Matson Navigation Co." on Justia Law

The Class Action Fairness Act extends federal court jurisdiction to class actions on behalf of 100 or more people and in request of $5 million or more in damages if “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant,” 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2)(A), (d)(5), (d)(6). Roberts filed a class action on behalf of Tennessee citizens against Mars, a citizen of Tennessee and Delaware, alleging a conspiracy to employ a “prescription-authorization requirement” to sell pet food at above market prices in violation of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act. Mars removed the case to federal court, invoking its Delaware citizenship and claiming its Tennessee citizenship did not matter. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for remand to state court. Because section 1332(d)(2)(A) refers to all of a defendant’s citizenships, not the alternative that suits it, Mars cannot rely on its state of incorporation (Delaware) and ignore its principal place of business (Tennessee) to create diversity under the Act. View "Roberts v. Mars Petcare US, Inc." on Justia Law

Kerr sought judicial review of the final determination that Kerr’s husband was not disabled and not entitled to any Social Security disability insurance benefits before his death. Kerr was due to receive any payment owed to Mr. Kerr. The parties stipulated to reversal and remand under 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Kerr then sought an award of $3,206.25 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), with any fees awarded “be made payable to Plaintiff’s counsel,” attaching an “Affidavit and Assignment of EAJA Fee.” The Commissioner did not oppose the motion. The district court granted the award, declined to honor Kerr’s assignment, and concluded that it was required to order payment to Kerr as the prevailing party. The court held that it could not “ignore the Anti-Assignment Act,” which prohibits “an assignment of a claim against the United States that is executed before the claim is allowed, before the amount of the claim is decided, and before a warrant for payment of the claim has been issued” but “le[ft] it to the Commissioner’s discretion to determine whether to waive the Anti-Assignment Act and make the fee payable to Mr. Marks.” The Commissioner responded that she would accept [Kerr’s] assignment and suggested that the court deny as moot Kerr’s Rule 59(e) motion. The district court and Sixth Circuit agreed that Kerr’s motion was moot, and did not reconsider the application of the AAA to the EAJA assignment. View "Kerr v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

At a campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky, in March 2016, then-candidate Trump responded to protesters by stating, “Get ‘em out of here,” followed closely by, “Don’t hurt ‘em—if I say go ‘get ‘em,’ I get in trouble with the press.” Allegedly in response to Trump’s initial statement, three protesters were assaulted by Trump supporters. Those protesters filed a complaint in Kentucky state court, which was removed to federal court. The district court denied in part Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding the complaint stated a plausible claim for “incitement to riot” under Kentucky law. The Sixth Circuit granted a petition for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). A district court may certify an order for interlocutory appeal if it is “of the opinion” that: “[1] the order involves a controlling question of law to which there is [2] substantial ground for difference of opinion and . . . [3] an immediate appeal may materially advance the termination of the litigation.” When the district court certifies its order and a timely petition follows, the Circuit Court must decide whether to exercise its “discretion,” as a prudential matter, to permit an appeal. The three factors that justify interlocutory appeal should be treated as guiding criteria rather than jurisdictional requisites. In this case, these criteria, along with other prudential factors, indicate that interlocutory appeal is “hardly imprudent.” View "In re: Donald Trump" on Justia Law

Smith has epilepsy. He had a seizure while driving, steered into a yard, exited the car, and walked away. A neighbor called the police. Miami County Deputy Osting arrived and observed Smith, sweating, grasping a fence, and yelling, “Baby,” with his outer pants down around his knees. Osting identified himself and asked Smith to return to his car. Smith did not respond. Osting thought that Smith was under the influence of something. Osting pried Smith’s fingers from the fence. Smith pulled away. Osting took Smith to the ground with a leg sweep and fell on top of him. During the ensuing struggle, Troy Officer Gates arrived, drew his taser, and ordered Smith to put his hands behind his back. Smith did not comply. Gates applied the taser. Additional officers arrived and grabbed Smith’s legs, allowing Osting to handcuff Smith. Gates’s taser was deployed eight times, a total of 48 seconds, during the two-minute encounter. No officer informed Smith that he was under arrest. Smith testified that he drifted out of lucidity during the incident, but remembered telling Osting he was having a seizure and that he developed PTSD following the incident. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on Smith’s federal civil rights claims; concluded that the officers used measured force and that even if individuals used excessive force, they were entitled to qualified immunity; held that municipal defendants could not be liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 without an underlying constitutional violation; and granted the defendants summary judgment on Smith’s ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12132, claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed Osting's summary judgment on Smith’s excessive force claims and the dismissal of Smith’s pendent state-law claims but otherwise affirmed. View "Smith v. City of Troy, Ohio" on Justia Law