Terence Thomas Evans

Susan Kellar sued her employer, Summit Seating, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging she was entitled to overtime pay for work she performed before her official shift start time, such as preparing workstations and reviewing schedules. The district court granted summary judgment to Summit, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although the court disagreed that the pre-shift activities were merely preliminary or de minimis, it held that Summit was not liable because it neither knew nor had reason to know that Kellar was performing compensable work before her shifts, as she never reported the overtime, followed policies against unapproved overtime, and supervisors arrived later. Kellar's related state law claim under Indiana's Wage Payment Statute also failed as derivative of the FLSA claim.

labor & employment

Krysten Overly sued her employer KeyBank and affiliates in state court under Title VII, alleging gender discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation for complaining about gender discrimination; the case was removed to federal court. The district court granted KeyBank's motion for summary judgment on both the discrimination and retaliation claims. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Overly failed to show genuine issues of material fact on her claims. The court found no circumstantial evidence pointing to a discriminatory reason for the employer's actions regarding her use of scanned signatures and related procedures, and no causal link between her HR complaint and any adverse actions such as territory reassignments, which aligned with a neutral business plan. The judgment in favor of KeyBank was therefore affirmed.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Bruce Barton, an employee at Zimmer, Inc., sued his employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after his supervisor reduced his job duties, allegedly due to his age, and after he took medical leave and received a new assignment upon return. The district court granted summary judgment for Zimmer, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that while evidence showed the supervisor discriminated based on age, it caused no compensable loss and was not linked to Barton's later retirement or psychological issues. There was also no evidence of retaliation by other managers for Barton's complaints, and Zimmer restored him to equivalent duties after FMLA leave without regard to the leave itself.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Troy Banister sued Chicago police officer Craig Burton and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Burton unlawfully shot him six times during an undercover drug operation in 2006. Banister testified he was unarmed and shot without provocation while Burton described Banister pulling a gun and threatening him, leading to Burton firing in self-defense; a gun was recovered near the scene. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and Banister appealed the admission of testimony from his treating physician Dr. Fishman regarding whether Banister could have thrown the gun or crawled, the City's failure to submit an expert report under Rule 26, and a remark in closing argument. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Dr. Fishman testified as a treating physician rather than a retained expert so no report was required, any nondisclosure was harmless because Banister knew of the opinions from a prior state trial, and the closing remark was promptly corrected and addressed by a curative jury instruction.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved Grazyna Pawlowska, a Polish citizen placed in removal proceedings after participating in "Operation Durango," a sting where she paid $5,000 to an undercover agent posing as a corrupt immigration official to obtain fraudulent permanent resident stamps. She requested a continuance to pursue adjustment of status via a family visa petition and alternatively sought voluntary departure, but the immigration judge denied both on discretionary grounds due to her conduct in the scheme, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the petition for review, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denials of relief and that attempts to recast the claims as legal questions did not overcome statutory jurisdictional bars.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved Robert Cantrell, a longtime Indiana public official, who was convicted by a jury on eleven counts including honest services mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346 for steering township contracts in exchange for kickbacks, insurance fraud under § 1341, and filing false tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) by failing to report the kickbacks. Cantrell appealed, challenging the honest services convictions as based on an unconstitutionally vague statute and arguing that his 78-month within-guidelines sentence was improper because the district court used the wrong Sentencing Guideline (§ 2C1.1 instead of § 2B1.1) and did not adequately address his arguments for leniency based on age and other factors. While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Skilling v. United States, which narrowed § 1346 to cover only bribery and kickback schemes; the Seventh Circuit held that Cantrell's conduct clearly fell within that narrowed scope, so the convictions were valid. The court further found no plain error in the guideline selection or in the district judge's explanation of the sentence, which explicitly considered Cantrell's age, accomplishments, and other mitigation arguments before rejecting them. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal law

Kenneth Truhlar, a U.S. Postal Service letter carrier, was fired in 2005 after an investigation found he had failed to disclose income from performing in a rock band on multiple DOL disability compensation forms following a work-related injury. He filed a hybrid suit under § 301 of the LMRA against the Postal Service for breaching the collective bargaining agreement by terminating him without just cause and against his union local for breaching its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievances. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the union representative's decision to withdraw the grievances was rational after reviewing the investigative memorandum, DOL forfeiture decision, and related facts, and that Truhlar presented no evidence of bad faith or arbitrary conduct. The court further noted that the union had no unilateral mechanism under the CBA to reinstate the grievances after withdrawal.

labor & employment

In United States v. DeWayne White, the defendant pled guilty to distributing crack cocaine pursuant to a plea agreement in which the government agreed to support sentencing reductions, including for acceptance of responsibility, minor participant role, and a safety valve reduction if White's criminal history made him eligible. After the plea but before sentencing, it became clear that White's criminal history disqualified him from the safety valve, eliminating the practical benefit of the other reductions and exposing him to a mandatory minimum sentence. White moved to withdraw his plea on grounds of mutual mistake, but the district court denied the motion, finding the plea was knowing and voluntary. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the plea agreement conditioned the reductions on eligibility, White had been advised of the mandatory minimum and uncertainty of the guidelines, and no specific sentence had been promised. The court dismissed the appeal based on the plea agreement's appeal waiver.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death suit by the parents of Tricia Mason, who committed suicide two days after starting the antidepressant Paxil, against its manufacturer GSK; they alleged negligence in failing to warn of increased suicide risk for young adults. The district court granted summary judgment to GSK, holding the claims preempted by federal law because the proposed warnings conflicted with FDA-approved labeling. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, applying the Supreme Court's Wyeth v. Levine decision: GSK failed to show by clear evidence that the FDA would have rejected a label change warning of suicide risk for young adults at the time of the death. The court noted GSK had submitted suicide data to the FDA around the relevant period but concluded this did not meet the high preemption threshold, especially given later FDA actions on similar risks.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liabilityfederal power

The case concerned a class action by UPS retirees who were members of Teamsters Local 705, who sued over increases in required health insurance contributions under the UPS Health and Welfare Package for Retired Employees plan when average annual costs exceeded a $6,250 cap. The district court enjoined collections above the base $50 monthly amount until further court order after finding the plan language favored the retirees on cost-sharing but not on timing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that a December 2007 Summary of Material Modifications validly amended the plan's Summary Plan Description and that UPS's interpretation of "current collective bargaining agreement" as referring to the 2002 agreement was not arbitrary and capricious under ERISA.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory

Melissa Christiansen was convicted of wire fraud after pleading guilty to four counts for defrauding several victims by posing as an expectant mother willing to place her unborn child for adoption, using online advertisements to solicit money and property from prospective adoptive parents. The district court applied vulnerable-victim and mass-marketing sentencing enhancements, calculated an advisory guideline range of four to ten months, and imposed a four-month prison term. Christiansen appealed, contending that the enhancements did not apply and that the court failed to properly weigh her post-offense rehabilitation and other positive life changes under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that the enhancements were correctly applied and that the district court adequately considered all relevant § 3553(a) factors, including her history and characteristics together with the nature and seriousness of the offense.

criminal law

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed in Kansas state court against Sprint Nextel alleging violations of the Kansas Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act through a conspiracy to inflate text-messaging prices. Sprint removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the district court remanded it to state court under CAFA's home-state exception, which applies when two-thirds or more of the proposed class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the filing state. Sprint petitioned for leave to appeal the remand. The Seventh Circuit granted the petition and vacated the remand order, holding that the plaintiffs' class definition (limited to those with Kansas cell numbers, Kansas billing addresses, and paying a Kansas fee) was insufficient by itself to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at least two-thirds of class members were Kansas citizens, as opposed to non-citizen residents like out-of-state businesses or students. The court noted that plaintiffs could have submitted statistical evidence of citizenship or redefined the class to include only Kansas citizens, and it remanded for another opportunity to make that showing.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Charles Cianciola's appeal from the denial of his federal habeas petition challenging his Wisconsin state conviction for sexual assault of a child. Cianciola argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately challenge expert testimony from the victim's therapist regarding delayed reporting and continued contact with the abuser. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief, holding that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably applied the Strickland v. Washington standard in concluding that any deficiencies in counsel's performance did not prejudice the outcome given other evidence, including Cianciola's statements to police and the victim's consistent testimony corroborated by friends. The court emphasized that under AEDPA, it could not disturb the state court's decision absent an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

criminal law

The case involved Johnny Lane's appeal from his convictions after a jury trial on charges of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, along with his mandatory life sentence based on prior felony drug convictions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in full. The court held that the district judge properly denied a mistrial after improper testimony about Lane requesting a lawyer and his prior incarceration, as curative instructions were given and any errors were harmless in the context of the trial. It also found no plain error in the government's §851 notice of prior convictions or in the drug quantity findings, since the life sentence was statutorily required regardless of the guidelines calculation.

criminal law

The case involved Antonio McAfee's federal habeas corpus petition challenging his Wisconsin state conviction for first-degree intentional homicide in the 1996 shooting death of Milwaukee police officer Wendolyn Tanner. McAfee claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by pursuing an all-or-nothing acquittal strategy focused on a possible "friendly fire" defense from the other officer rather than also requesting instructions on lesser offenses like reckless homicide. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the petition. Applying AEDPA standards, the court held that the state court's rejection of the Strickland claim was reasonable because counsel's strategic choice was not objectively deficient and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, precluding any showing of prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

Robert Senske sued his former employer Sybase under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, claiming he was fired because of his age rather than for the performance issues cited by the company, such as poor sales performance, tardiness, and client complaints. The district court granted summary judgment to Sybase, finding no genuine issue of material fact that discrimination motivated the termination. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Senske failed to show that Sybase's reasons were pretextual or provide direct evidence of age bias, as his performance consistently fell short of expectations and comparisons to other employees did not indicate discriminatory treatment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Joseph Lake sued the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, alleging that its disclosure of his personal information from a voter registration form completed at an Illinois DMV office violated the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that a voter registration form filled out under the National Voter Registration Act is not a motor vehicle record under the DPPA, as it does not pertain to a motor vehicle operator’s permit, title, registration, or identification card. The decision rested on the plain statutory language and the conclusion that a contrary interpretation would produce absurd results by creating inconsistent disclosure rules and undermining the NVRA’s goal of facilitating voter registration.

electionsprocedure

The case involved a dispute over an employment contract between Derek Lewitton and ITA Software, Inc., under which Lewitton was granted stock options that vested monthly but were subject to forfeiture based on revenue targets during a defined assessment period tied to the development of ITA's 1U program. After Lewitton's employment ended, ITA allowed him to exercise only a portion of the options, claiming the rest were forfeited, while Lewitton sued for breach of contract seeking to exercise the full amount. The district court granted summary judgment to Lewitton, finding the contract unambiguous in granting options absent specific forfeiture triggers, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that the contract's terms clearly established monthly vesting with forfeiture only if revenue goals were unmet, that delays in the 1U program deferred but did not eliminate the assessment period, and that no forfeiture events occurred based on the undisputed facts. ITA waived arguments regarding option validity by prior agreement.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

Patrick Butler, a police sergeant for the Village of Round Lake, Illinois, sued the police department under the Americans with Disabilities Act after being denied return to work with permanent restrictions due to his COPD diagnosis. The district court granted summary judgment to the department on grounds of judicial estoppel, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that Butler's sworn testimony and supporting medical evidence before the police pension board—that his condition prevented him from performing essential duties such as chasing suspects, wrestling, running, or walking more than four blocks—precluded him from claiming he could perform those functions with or without reasonable accommodation. The panel reasoned that judicial estoppel bars a party from taking inconsistent positions in successive proceedings, and no accommodation like a day-shift assignment could overcome the admitted limitations. The opinion rejected Butler's arguments that the pension hearing addressed different job functions or that running and fighting were non-essential.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Candice Rosenberg, a nurse practitioner charged in an 82-count federal indictment with illegally prescribing controlled substances such as oxycontin, vicodin, and fentanyl to nine patients without legitimate medical need, in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rosenberg pleaded guilty to one count, with the others dismissed, but the district court included prescriptions from the dismissed counts as relevant conduct under the federal sentencing guidelines after a two-day hearing featuring expert testimony, resulting in a 70- to 87-month range and a 70-month sentence. Rosenberg appealed, contending that only the pleaded count should count and that the court improperly conflated civil and criminal liability standards. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence, ruling that the government met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence to show the additional prescriptions lacked a legitimate medical purpose and were issued outside the usual course of professional practice, and that the district court correctly applied the criminal standard while noting the civil one only for context; objections to other prescriptions were waived.

criminal law