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

In 2001, Akridge was convicted of conspiring to distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine; possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine; possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime; and possessing a firearm as a felon. Akridge had prior convictions for aggravated assault and possession of cocaine. He was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 based on a then-mandatory Guidelines range of 30 years’ to life imprisonment for his drug-trafficking offenses. Akridge also was subject to a mandatory consecutive 25-year sentence for using a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, since he had a prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court sentenced Akridge to 55 years’ imprisonment: 30 years for his drug and a consecutive 25-year term.The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act reduced the sentencing disparity between crack- and powder-cocaine penalties; the 2018 First Step Act made this change retroactive. Akridge sought a sentence reduction, acknowledging that his career-offender designation and corresponding offense level remained unchanged. Proceeding to the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, the court noted that while Akridge had taken vocational and self-improvement classes, he had also received 11 disciplinary sanctions. Citing Akridge’s post-sentencing misconduct and criminal history, the court declined to reduce his sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court miscalculated his Guidelines’ range and that its “3553(a) analysis was procedurally incomplete … because it was anchored” to the wrong career-offender range. View "United States v. Akridge" on Justia Law

Based on nominations, UC awarded “triumph cords” to graduating students who had overcome adversity. UC did not vet the nominees and unintentionally awarded a cord to a convicted sex offender. Goldblum, UC’s Title IX coordinator, told her supervisor, Marshall, that she would investigate how UC evaluated admissions applications from convicted sex offenders and address the controversy in the student newspaper. Goldblum forwarded a letter to Marshall, who ordered Goldblum not to submit anything until Marshall coordinated with other University officials. The administration had authorized Dean Petren to address the controversy. Marshall told Goldblum that Petren would issue UC’s response. Marshall also identified problems with the letter’s content. Goldblum texted Marshall that she intended to submit the letter and accept “any repercussions.” Marshall texted: “Please do not send.” Goldblum sent the letter, which was never published. Marshall reported Goldblum’s insubordination. During an investigation, UC discovered additional infractions: Goldblum repeatedly ignored Title IX complaints, criticized her colleagues in front of her staff, and missed reporting deadlines. UC allowed Goldblum to resign in lieu of termination.Goldblum sued UC for unlawful termination under Title VII and Title IX. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims. UC had legitimate nonretaliatory reasons to fire Goldblum, who has not produced “sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably reject” UC’s proffered reasons. Her letter was not “protected activity.” No reasonable juror could conclude that UC’s work-performance rationale was not based in fact. View "Goldblum v. University of Cincinnati" on Justia Law

Before 2017, B. lived in Illinois; he had no formal mental health diagnoses. B.’s school records reflected that he was meeting academic and behavioral expectations with no safety plan, individualized education program (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(2), or section 504 plan. The family moved to Tennessee. There were disciplinary referrals during the first several weeks of school. B. was admitted to a medical center. His discharge papers listed: unspecified disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. His parents and the school discussed the possibility of an IEP or section 504 plan. B. received additional disciplinary referrals and was arrested by a school resource officer for disorderly conduct. B. was suspended pending a hearing. His parents withdrew B. from school before the hearing and enrolled B. in a private school for the 2018–2019 school year.B.’s parents alleged B. had been denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failure to identify and evaluate him for special education services and failing to implement an IEP. The district initiated an evaluation and determined that B. was eligible for services. An ALJ found that the district did not deny B. a FAPE and that the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for B.’s private school education.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the parents’ IDEA suit. B. had no history of receiving special education services and attended the school for a very brief time. It is contested whether the school was aware of B.’s formal diagnoses. Expert witnesses testified that they did not believe a special education referral had been necessary. While the district was not as communicative or responsive as it could have been, it did not overlook “clear signs of disability” and was not negligent in failing to order testing. View "Ja. B. v. Wilson County Board of Education" on Justia Law

The 2020 Horseracing Safety and Integrity Act created a national framework to regulate thoroughbred horseracing, replacing several state regulatory authorities with a private corporation, the Horseracing Authority, the Act’s primary rule-maker. The Authority was not subordinate to the relevant public agency, the Federal Trade Commission, in critical ways. In 2022, the Fifth Circuit declared the Act unconstitutional because it gave “a private entity the last word” on federal law. Congress amended the Act to give the Federal Trade Commission discretion to “abrogate, add to, and modify” any rules that bind the industry, 15 U.S.C. 3053(e).The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit filed by Oklahoma, West Virginia, Louisiana, their racing commissions, and other entities that made the same claims as the Fifth Circuit case. While the challenges are not moot, the Authority is now subordinate to the FTC, which has “pervasive” oversight and control of the Authority’s enforcement activities, just as it does in the rulemaking context. The court rejected a “commandeering” challenge to a provision that requires state authorities to “cooperate and share information” with the Authority or federal agencies for lack of standing and rejected claims that the Act was coercive or punitive. View "State of Oklahoma v. United States" on Justia Law

Bouye financed a furniture purchase with Winner through a retail installment contract (RIC). Winner supposedly sold the debt to Mariner. Bouye defaulted. Mariner, through its attorney (Bruce), sued in state court to recover the debt and attorney’s fees “of one-third of the amount" collected; the RIC limited fees to 15% of the unpaid balance. The attached RIC did not establish a transfer to Mariner. The court ordered Mariner to file proof of assignment. Mariner filed an updated RIC that listed Winner’s store manager as assigning the debt to Mariner. The court granted Mariner summary judgment. The Kentucky appellate court found that Mariner had not sufficiently demonstrated a valid transfer. Mariner dismissed the case.Bouye sued Bruce in federal court under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692(e), 380 days after Mariner sued in state court. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely under FDCPA’s one-year limitations period. Bruce sought attorney’s fees. Meanwhile, Bouye and Mariner entered into a settlement that released Mariner, later clarifying that Bruce was not released.Three months before the court denied motions for reconsideration and attorney’s fees, Bruce learned of the settlement. The Sixth Circuit first held the settlement did not moot the appeal, then reversed, The statute of limitations did not bar an allegation Bruce filed an updated RIC and moved for summary judgment on that basis, affirmatively misrepresenting that the assignment occurred before Mariner filed suit. View "Bouye v. Bruce" on Justia Law

Brothers Marshane and Terry were convicted in 2005 of conspiring to distribute crack and powder cocaine. Each brother had at least two prior convictions for a “felony drug offense.” Their latest convictions required life sentences. The Guidelines ranges for both brothers was 360 months to life, regardless of whether they were deemed career offenders. Both were sentenced to life in prison. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 raised the amount of crack cocaine required to trigger the statutory penalties. The Sentencing Guidelines changed how multiple prior sentences are counted in calculating an offender’s criminal history and changed the drug-equivalency tables to reflect the Act. Marshane's Guidelines range dropped to 292-365 months. Terry's range fell to 324-405 months. If treated as career offenders, the brothers would still have a Guidelines range of 360 months to life. The 2018 First Step Act made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive.In 2020, the brothers sought sentence reductions. Conceding that they are career offenders, they asked for a downward variance, emphasizing their rehabilitation and a recent report recommending that offenders convicted only of drug-trafficking crimes should not be deemed career offenders. The government argued that the Act had not modified the penalties for their offense that involved five kilograms or more of powder cocaine and that they remained career offenders. President Obama had already commuted their sentences to the bottom of their Guidelines ranges. The district court granted reduced sentences of 306 months for Marshane and 324 months for Terry. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the district court erred by failing to recognize that, under current law, they were not career offenders. While an error occurred, it was invited by the defendants and was not so plain as to warrant remand. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Stryker develops, manufactures, and sells spinal implants and products, and employed Abbas from 2013-2022. Abbas purports to have worked exclusively within Stryker’s finance department. Stryker claims that Abbas worked in various roles, including in sales. Abbas regularly used significant amounts of Stryker’s confidential information and trade secrets and supported Stryker’s litigation efforts. Abbas entered into confidentiality, noncompetition, and nonsolicitation agreements with Stryker when he commenced his employment, and again in 2022.Alphatec competes with Stryker. Stryker alleges that Alphatec "systematically misappropriate[s] Stryker[’s] confidential information, trade secrets, customer goodwill, and talent” and is litigating against Alphatec and former Stryker employees in several cases. Abbas resigned from Stryker to take a newly-developed position with Alphatec, a sales role, “crafted to protect Stryker’s confidential information.” Stryker sued for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the issuance of a preliminary injunction on behalf of Stryker. The district court crafted the injunction to preserve the status quo, reserving the possibility that other prospective jobs might be consistent with Abbas's employment agreement. It is not an impermissible industry-wide ban. Stryker is likely to succeed on the merits, based on findings that Abbas worked for Stryker in both sales and finance; Abbas had unfettered access to Stryker’s most sensitive sales and financial information, Stryker’s sales representatives, and key customer decision-makers; the Alphatec position involved work similar to the work Abbas performed for Stryker; and Abbas supported Stryker on litigation matters. View "Stryker Employment Co., LLC v. Abbas" on Justia Law

In 1978, Ohio State hired Richard Strauss, M.D., as an assistant professor of medicine. From 1978-1996, Strauss treated students and student-athletes, as the team doctor for multiple sports and as a student health center physician. When Strauss voluntarily, retired in 1998, the university designated him as an Emeritus Professor although he had been “quietly” placed on leave in 1996 following multiple reports of abuse. In 2018, former student-athletes publicly accused the school of covering up Strauss’s abuse. An investigation reported that Strauss had sexually abused at least 177 students. Plaintiffs allege that the school failed to meaningfully investigate numerous complaints, hid or failed to maintain records of abuse complaints, and failed to inform students and some staff of the abuse until 2018. Plaintiffs allege that they could not have known about the school’s knowledge, and cover-up, of their abuse until the 2019 release of the report; 532 plaintiffs brought 37 separate cases. This appeal concerns students who were abused by Strauss from 1978-1998.The district court dismissed the Title IX claims as time-barred by Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations, whether measured by a discovery rule or an occurrence rule; denied motions for recusal based on the judge’s connections and his wife’s connections to Ohio State; and dismissed Title IX retaliation claims that alleged Ohio State employees made public comments, in a retaliatory attempt to “silence” them.The Sixth Circuit vacated in part but affirmed the denial of the recusal motion and the dismissal of the retaliation claims. Just when the plaintiffs should have known that Strauss’s conduct was abuse, and when they should have known about Ohio State’s role in causing their injuries are questions of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss. View "Garrett v. The Ohio State University" on Justia Law

Jane, a sophomore, reported to Oberlin College’s Title IX office (20 U.S.C. 1681–1688) that she believed her sexual encounters with Doe amounted to sexual misconduct. The office did not inform Doe of the allegations for several weeks and did not investigate. According to Doe, the delay resulted in a failure to preserve exculpatory security-camera footage. Doe alleges that the dearth of information provided to him led him to hire a private investigator. Doe believed that Jane had spoken to other students about the matter and requested that Oberlin protect his privacy. Doe was told that Jane had requested an informal resolution but was later told that Jane had decided to pursue a formal resolution. Doe asserted a retaliation complaint, claiming that the change was prompted by his complaint that Jane was slandering him. Oberlin then provided Doe with the requested reports and complaints.Doe sought a temporary restraining order weeks after learning of Roe’s complaint, before any formal hearing process began, alleging violations of federal due process, Title IX, and state tort laws. Oberlin subsequently officially concluded that Doe had not violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy. The district court dismissed the due process claim with prejudice and dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part. Although the district court did not follow the appropriate process for an on-the-merits, sua sponte dismissal of Doe’s due process claim, Oberlin is not a state actor subject to federal due process requirements. The court remanded in part; the court was correct to dismiss the remaining claims for lack of ripeness, but subsequent factual developments have ripened the claims. View "Doe v. Oberlin College" on Justia Law

Waide encountered the Lexington police after a shed fire occurred on the property next to his. Although no one suspected Waide of being involved with the fire and there was no evidence of arson, the fire investigator noticed surveillance cameras attached to Waide’s duplex residence and asked Waide to turn over his DVR. When Waide declined, the investigator obtained a warrant to enter Waide’s apartment and retrieve the DVR. When six officers arrived at Waide’s duplex to execute that warrant, their threatened entry and questions about whether Waide had drugs on the premises caused Waide to admit that his apartment contained a small amount of marijuana. This confession led to the issuance of two subsequent warrants to search both units of Waide’s duplex for narcotics–the other unit was occupied by Waide’s mother. The searches yielded a firearm plus large quantities of drugs and money.After the district court denied Waide’s motions to suppress evidence, he entered into a conditional guilty plea to the offense of possessing cocaine and heroin with the intent to distribute the drugs and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The affidavit in support of the DVR warrant lacked reliable evidence to establish probable cause to believe that the shed fire was due to arson or any other criminal activity. The incriminating evidence should be suppressed because it stemmed from the exploitation of the unlawful DVR warrant. View "United States v. Waide" on Justia Law