Michael Stephen Kanne

Lily Abebe, a Black woman of Ethiopian origin employed as a dental assistant at Eskenazi Health, sued her employer under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, claiming that a low 2018 performance review (which denied her a merit raise) reflected race and national-origin discrimination, and that her placement on a Performance Improvement Plan shortly after she contacted the EEOC constituted retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that Abebe had not identified proper comparators who were similarly situated yet treated more favorably, and that the withdrawn Performance Improvement Plan was not a materially adverse action and lacked evidence of causation beyond suspicious timing.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Carlton Reives, a Black former Illinois State Police special agent, sued the ISP under Title VII, claiming race discrimination based on a sixty-day suspension imposed after an internal investigation found he had submitted false inspection reports and a memorandum about voluntary overtime work, and based on downgraded ratings on his 2016 performance evaluation that lowered his promotion ranking. The district court granted summary judgment to the ISP, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that Reives failed to identify a similarly situated non-Black comparator treated more favorably, as his partner was charged only with a lesser infraction for attending a wake while on duty after submitting truthful reports. It further held that the performance evaluation downgrade was not an adverse employment action because Reives remained certified for promotion and the lower ranking produced no demonstrated tangible effect on his career prospects or compensation.

civil rightslabor & employment

Pablo Hidalgo-Sanchez and Luis F. Gomez were convicted by a jury in the Eastern District of Wisconsin of conspiring to distribute large quantities of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine as part of a Milwaukee-based drug-trafficking organization that imported drugs and exported proceeds through hidden vehicle compartments. Hidalgo-Sanchez appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence, improper venue, and the lack of a limiting jury instruction, while Gomez appealed the government's introduction of bolstering testimony from a law-enforcement witness. The Seventh Circuit affirmed both convictions, holding that Hidalgo-Sanchez's claims identified no reversible error and that, although the bolstering testimony was improper, Gomez had not preserved the objection and the error did not rise to plain error given the strength of the remaining evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Tyshawn Swinney, the case concerned whether Chicago police had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop and pat-down of Swinney after an anonymous 911 caller reported seeing a man pull a large gun from his pocket and enter a liquor store. Officers arrived minutes later, observed Swinney matching the caller’s description of clothing and location, searched him, and recovered a loaded .45-caliber pistol, resulting in his conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Swinney’s motion to suppress, ruling that the tip was reliable because it was a contemporaneous eyewitness account of observed criminal activity conveyed through the 911 system (with the caller’s number recorded), the details were corroborated by officers on scene, and these factors established reasonable suspicion under Navarette v. California without needing further independent verification of the gun itself.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Ashaki Paschall and Gerald Ragland, former machine operators at Tube Processing Corporation, sued the company under Title VII, alleging they faced a hostile work environment based on sex and race. Paschall described explicit sexual comments and racial slurs from coworkers Benash and Odom; Ragland claimed exposure to racial harassment, though he did not personally witness or experience most of the cited conduct. The district court granted summary judgment to Tube Processing, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish employer liability because they did not report all incidents, and the company responded to the complaints it received by disciplining the employees involved—suspending Odom for three days and issuing a written warning to Benash—with no further similar conduct reported afterward. The court also noted that conduct not directed at Ragland could not support his claim, and the evidence did not show the employer was negligent in addressing unreported matters such as political attire or flags.

civil rightslabor & employment

In 2003, Michael Gamboa was convicted by a federal jury in North Dakota of multiple drug and firearm offenses and received a mandatory life sentence after the court determined that three prior state drug convictions qualified as predicate “felony drug offenses” under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). After unsuccessful direct appeal and multiple § 2255 motions, Gamboa filed a new § 2241 habeas petition claiming that Mathis v. United States (2016) rendered his Minnesota and North Dakota convictions invalid predicates because the state statutes were categorically broader than the federal definition in 21 U.S.C. § 802(44). The district court denied relief, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Gamboa had not shown his claim was previously unavailable. The court reasoned that the governing categorical approach (from Taylor and Descamps) and arguments about indivisibility and overbroad drug schedules were already available at the time of his initial § 2255 motion, so the “saving clause” gateway to § 2241 did not apply.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

Russell Pontinen sued United States Steel Corporation under the ADA after USS rescinded a conditional job offer for a Utility Person position at its Midwest Plant, a safety-sensitive role involving heavy machinery, molten metal, and other hazards. USS made the decision following a pre-employment medical exam and review of records from Pontinen’s neurologist, which showed he had a history of multiple seizures, had stopped taking prescribed medication against medical advice, and remained at elevated risk. The district court granted summary judgment to USS on direct-threat grounds, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeals court held that the undisputed medical evidence satisfied the ADA’s direct-threat factors—nature and severity of harm, duration, likelihood, and imminence—establishing that Pontinen’s uncontrolled seizure disorder would pose a significant risk to himself and others in the position.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Charles Skaggs, Jr. was charged with twelve counts of producing and possessing child pornography after U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport seized thumb drives from his luggage during a warrantless border inspection upon his return from Ukraine; forensic review of the drives revealed the illegal material. The district court denied Skaggs’s motion to suppress the evidence, convicted him on all counts after a bench trial, and imposed a life sentence, which it initially viewed as mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(e) due to his prior state conviction for sexual misconduct with a minor. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed both the conviction and sentence. It upheld the denial of suppression because the search fell within the border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and was supported by reasonable suspicion arising from Skaggs’s history and travel patterns. The court also held that, although the district court erred in treating the life sentence as mandatory, the error was harmless because the judge explicitly stated it would have imposed the same sentence as a matter of discretion after considering the § 3553(a) factors.

criminal lawprocedure

Cordell Sanders, an Illinois inmate with three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, filed a federal lawsuit without prepaying the filing fee, claiming he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury from prison practices at Pontiac Correctional Center that allegedly required inmates in solitary confinement to self-harm or declare suicidal intent to receive mental health attention. The district court dismissed the entire suit with prejudice as a sanction, finding that Sanders had lied about the danger to evade the three-strikes rule. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the district court’s finding of fraud was clearly erroneous because the record did not establish that Sanders knowingly made false allegations, and that the court abused its discretion by imposing dismissal without first considering lesser sanctions. The opinion emphasized that the evidence showed Sanders had a documented history of mental illness and self-harm consistent with his claims.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurehealthcare

In Aluminum Trailer Company v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., ATC sued its insurer Westchester seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurer owed a duty to defend and indemnify it in a separate Arizona lawsuit brought by BizBox. BizBox had alleged breach of contract and tortious interference after ATC manufactured and sold a trailer using BizBox’s design, but the complaint never mentioned trade dress or advertising. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that Westchester had no duty under the policy’s “personal and advertising injury” coverage. The court reasoned that the policy covers only injuries arising from trade-dress infringement in the insured’s advertisement, and BizBox’s complaint alleged neither such an infringement nor any facts that could plausibly be read to assert an advertising injury.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Eric Mboule, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud after participating in a scheme that defrauded the University of Illinois of over $265,000 through a fake wire transfer arranged with a co-conspirator. Mboule signed a plea agreement that included a broad waiver of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, along with cooperation provisions requiring complete and truthful information; he later moved to withdraw his guilty plea and appealed the district court’s denial of that motion and aspects of his sentence. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellate waiver remained enforceable. The court reasoned that Mboule’s false statements to an FBI agent during a pre-plea proffer session breached the cooperation terms, allowing the government to withdraw its sentencing recommendations without voiding the entire plea agreement or permitting withdrawal of the plea, and that the plea colloquy properly confirmed Mboule’s understanding of the waiver.

criminal lawprocedure

Sylvia Leszanczuk defaulted on her FHA-insured mortgage serviced by Carrington Mortgage Services, which performed a drive-by inspection of the property and charged her a disclosed $20 fee, prompting her to file a putative class action alleging breach of the mortgage contract under Illinois law and an unfair practice under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The district court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that Paragraph 5 of the mortgage expressly allowed the servicer to inspect the property once the loan was in default, without regard to occupancy, and that the cited HUD regulation did not limit permissible fees under the contract. It further held that the fee did not offend public policy, was not oppressive, and caused no substantial injury under the ICFA because Leszanczuk was already in default, faced no foreclosure threat tied to the fee itself, and could have selected a different servicer.

propertybusiness & regulatory

Andrea Santiago, a severely disabled Chicago resident whose wheelchair-accessible van was parked unmoved on a public street for extended periods, sued the City after it was towed, impounded, and disposed of under the Municipal Code’s abandoned-vehicle rules, alleging constitutional due-process violations in the notice and procedures used. She sought certification of two classes: one for vehicle owners affected by the initial towing process and another for those whose vehicles were later disposed of. The district court granted partial class certification, but the Seventh Circuit vacated the order and remanded, ruling that the lower court abused its discretion by failing to conduct the rigorous Rule 23 analysis needed to evaluate predominance of common issues, adequacy of the representative, and the fit between the claims and class definitions. The appeals court noted that the district court’s order was unclear on how the notice disputes applied to each proposed class and did not sufficiently tie the facts to the legal elements of the claims.

civil rightsprocedureproperty

Nickolas Seekins, an employee of Capstone Logistics working at a Dollar General distribution center in Indiana, suffered a foot amputation after a shared rider pallet jack he was operating failed to stop, causing him to jump off and become pinned against a parked forklift. He sued CHEP USA and CHEP Recycled Pallet Solutions, two other contractors at the same site with no direct contractual relationship to Capstone or each other, alleging negligence in connection with the equipment, which Dollar General owned, maintained, and controlled. After removal to federal court, the district court granted summary judgment to CHEP on the ground that it owed Seekins no duty of care under Indiana law, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that shared use of third-party equipment, without more, does not create a duty under Indiana negligence principles, including Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, and that no Indiana authority supported imposing liability between the two contractors in these circumstances. It also declined to certify the question to the Indiana Supreme Court, finding existing precedent sufficiently clear.

torts & liability

Joel Reinebold sued Indiana University South Bend athletic officials Steve Bruce and Tom Norris under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against him on the basis of age when the university declined to hire the 56-year-old as head baseball coach and instead selected a 31-year-old candidate. The district court granted summary judgment to Bruce and Norris, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Reinebold failed to identify evidence that the defendants intentionally treated him differently from similarly situated younger applicants because of his age; the hiring committee unanimously declined to advance him after a poor phone interview, age was never discussed in that decision, and isolated notes such as “Looking for a retirement job” were not shown to reflect the decision-makers’ motives or to have influenced the outcome.

civil rightslabor & employment

In United States v. Juan Zamudio, the defendant appealed his 300-month sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and money laundering, arguing that the district court erred in calculating his base offense level by attributing at least 4.5 kilograms of actual methamphetamine to him, and in applying two-level enhancements for possessing a firearm and for maintaining a drug premises. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence in full. It held that the drug quantity finding was supported by evidence that Zamudio allowed his brother to store nearly 25 pounds of pure methamphetamine in his garage. The firearm enhancement was proper because a loaded pistol was seized from Zamudio’s vehicle alongside methamphetamine and a digital scale. The drug premises enhancement was warranted because large quantities of drugs had been stored at the residence for months, along with tools of the trade, even if the premises also had lawful uses.

criminal lawguns

In March 2017, the Department of Homeland Security placed Yves Mabuneza, a Congolese native and U.S. lawful permanent resident, in removal proceedings based on his criminal convictions. Mabuneza sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, asserting that he faced a substantial risk of torture in the Democratic Republic of the Congo due to his Tutsi ethnicity, past persecution, U.S. media coverage of his refugee status, and his sexual abuse conviction. The immigration judge denied relief after finding the feared harm speculative and not more likely than not to occur, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal, and the Board later denied his motion to reconsider. The Seventh Circuit denied both petitions for review, holding that the IJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence under the applicable regulations and that the Board had not erred in rejecting the reconsideration motion because it largely repeated prior arguments or raised new ones that could have been presented earlier.

immigration

Carl Palladinetti was charged with bank fraud for his role in a scheme to obtain mortgages by misrepresenting down payments and other facts on loan applications, including one $345,000 mortgage from Washington Mutual Bank, FA in July 2005. After a bench trial limited to whether the lender was FDIC-insured, the district court found him guilty on that count. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that FDIC certificates, SEC filings, mortgage documents, and witness testimony established that the same institution—operating under the names Washington Mutual Bank, FA and later Washington Mutual Bank—was continuously insured under a single certificate number on the date of the loan. The court rejected the argument that minor name variations created a failure of proof, distinguishing the case from precedents requiring separate evidence for differently named entities.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

Robert Bless, a white Republican police officer with the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, was terminated in 2013 after the Merit Board found he had engaged in unauthorized secondary employment while on disability leave, violated driving restrictions, and lied to internal investigators about submitting required forms. He sued the Sheriff’s Office and others, claiming political retaliation under § 1983 and race discrimination under § 1983 and Title VII. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. On the retaliation claim, the court found no evidence linking the termination to Bless’s political affiliation rather than the Merit Board’s independent findings of misconduct. On the discrimination claim, the court held that Bless failed to identify similarly situated comparators or show that the stated reasons for his firing were pretextual.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Mark McGill, who was on supervised release following a prior child pornography conviction. During a home visit, his probation officer seized an unmonitored cell phone without a warrant after observing suspicious behavior and receiving McGill’s admission that it contained child pornography; a later search pursuant to a warrant uncovered thousands of such images, leading to new federal charges. McGill moved to suppress the phone and its contents as the product of an unlawful seizure. The district court denied the motion, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that suppression was not required because the seizure was justified by the phone’s status as contraband in plain view and by reasonable suspicion, because the evidence would inevitably have been discovered through a warrant based on the officer’s observations and McGill’s statements, and because the officer acted in good faith.

criminal lawprocedure