Jon Phipps McCalla

In this employment case, a Black female employee sued her employer, Shelby County Government Community Services Agency, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for being denied a promotion to Counselor C in favor of a less experienced white applicant in 2004, along with subsequent retaliatory harassment. After the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding the race discrimination claims, the defendant moved to dismiss them. The court granted the motion, holding that the EEOC charge did not check the box for racial discrimination and was untimely under the 300-day filing requirement, that the alleged harassing incidents were not shown to be racially motivated or timely, and that a state actor cannot be sued directly under § 1981 in the Sixth Circuit.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case arose from claims by the EEOC that Mid-American Specialties, Inc. violated Title VII by subjecting three female employees to a hostile work environment based on sex and by retaliating against two of them for reporting the harassment. A jury found the company liable and awarded substantial compensatory, back-pay, and punitive damages. The EEOC then sought a permanent injunction that would broadly prohibit future discrimination and retaliation, require distribution of policies, mandate employee notices, and impose training and reporting requirements. The court granted the motion in part, ordering specific relief such as posting a detailed notice to employees for three years, distributing anti-retaliation policies, and requiring annual training and complaint reporting, while denying the broadest "obey the law" provisions as insufficiently specific under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). The court reasoned that injunctive relief was warranted given the jury's findings and the continued employment of the accused supervisors, but that any injunction must describe prohibited acts with reasonable particularity.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a female sergeant employed by the Shelby County Sheriff's Office who brought claims of sex discrimination, age discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Title VII, the ADEA, the THRA, and state tort law, based on alleged denials of enforcement duties, transfers, comments about her age and sex, and other workplace conduct spanning multiple EEOC charges. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. It determined that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie cases for discrimination or retaliation due to lack of adverse employment actions or evidence of similarly situated comparators, that the alleged harassment was neither severe nor pervasive, and that many incidents were time-barred or unsupported. The motion to strike was denied as moot.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) brought by former hourly employees of behavioral health facilities operated by UHS of Lakeside, LLC, Community Behavioral Health, LLC, and Universal Health Services. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the FLSA by automatically deducting 30 minutes for unpaid meal breaks from all shifts of six hours or more, even when employees were required to work through those breaks due to patient care demands and staffing issues, resulting in uncompensated overtime. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and authorized notice to all non-exempt employees who worked at the facilities in the past three years. Applying the lenient standard at the initial certification stage, the court found that the plaintiffs had made a sufficient showing that they and the putative class members were similarly situated based on the common meal-break deduction policy. The court noted that defendants' arguments regarding differences among employers and employees were better addressed at the decertification or summary judgment stage.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case was a putative class action by a homeowner against National City Bank challenging the bank's suspension of his home equity line of credit after an automated valuation model indicated a decline in the home's value from $354,800 to $332,100. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z for failing to consider present equity, lacking a sufficient factual basis, providing deficient notice, and requiring upfront appraisal fees, along with state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss all claims. It reasoned under the Iqbal and Twombly plausibility standard that TILA and Regulation Z permit suspension based on a significant decline in property value without separately determining equity levels or providing additional disclosures, that the bank's actions complied with official interpretations of the statute, and that the state claims either depended on the dismissed federal claims or were not plausibly alleged.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute over an attorney's handling of a client's settlement proceeds from an automobile accident claim in which the plaintiff was injured and her fiancé was killed. The defendant attorney settled the claim for $197,480 without the plaintiff's authorization or knowledge, deposited the funds, and then disbursed them to the plaintiff in small monthly amounts while falsely claiming to have paid medical providers and failing to provide a full accounting or the remaining balance despite repeated requests. After the plaintiff obtained new counsel who demanded records, the court reviewed evidence of the defendant's misconduct on a motion for default judgment. The court adopted in part and rejected in part the magistrate judge's report, entered final default judgment awarding the plaintiff $93,017.55 in compensatory damages plus $300,000 in punitive damages, along with prejudgment interest, costs, and a writ for records, based on findings that the defendant wrongfully withheld funds, deceived the vulnerable plaintiff, and violated professional conduct rules.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Bray v. Tennessee Valley Authority, a worker employed by a TVA contractor sued TVA for negligence after inhaling anhydrous ammonia and falling into a boiler while making repairs at TVA's Allen Fossil Plant. The court granted TVA's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that under Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Law, TVA qualified as the plaintiff's statutory employer as a principal contractor because it retained the right of control over the work and the boiler tube repairs were part of TVA's regular business, rendering TVA immune from tort liability under the exclusivity provisions. The court applied the disjunctive principal contractor test from Tennessee precedent, found no genuine issue of material fact, and concluded summary judgment was appropriate.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a class action by shareholders of an Illinois corporation called Adtech against Headwaters, Inc., alleging that Headwaters conspired with James Gary Davidson to fraudulently transfer rights to a coal-related patent ('629 Patent) and associated license away from the company, depriving the shareholders of profits. The court addressed Headwaters's motion for summary judgment regarding unnamed class members, after an initial jury had found Headwaters liable for civil conspiracy to defraud the class as a whole. The court granted the motion in part by excluding certain unnamed plaintiffs, such as heirs of deceased shareholders and others who could not demonstrate class membership or individual reliance, but denied it in part on issues like whether the class could establish an equitable interest in the patent and collective claims under 35 U.S.C. § 262. The decision turned on the class definition, evidentiary requirements for reliance under Tennessee law, and distinctions among groups of plaintiffs based on prior distributions or proof issues. Remaining claims proceed to a second trial phase on individual and equitable matters.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved claims by Shirley Ann Verges, an African-American female deputy sheriff, against the Shelby County Sheriff's Office for sex and race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, stemming from her employment experiences in different bureaus between 2004 and 2008. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The reasoning centered on the plaintiff's failure to provide evidence showing that any adverse actions were motivated by discrimination or retaliation, that the conduct created a hostile work environment severe or pervasive enough to violate the law, or that the employer's actions met the threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves Plaintiff Riley Turner, a former building operator for the Memphis Grizzlies, who was terminated in 2006 after an internal investigation into employees viewing pornography on a shared workplace computer. Turner sued his employer under Title VII for hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation, while also bringing state-law claims for retaliatory discharge and defamation based on a company email announcing the terminations and referencing sexual harassment policy violations. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliatory discharge claims due to insufficient evidence or procedural bars. It denied summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim, finding factual disputes over protected activity and causation, and on the defamation claim, due to questions about the email's publication scope and the employer's diligence in verifying its contents.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case involved a habeas corpus petition by Mario Juarez-Saldana challenging the U.S. Secretary of State's decision to extradite him to Mexico under a treaty to face 1997 aggravated homicide charges, on grounds that extradition would likely result in torture in violation of the Convention Against Torture and the FARR Act. The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss the petition. The court reasoned that longstanding precedent establishes a rule of non-inquiry barring judicial review of the Secretary's extradition decisions, that neither the CAT nor the FARR Act supersedes this rule or creates a private right of action, and that the REAL ID Act confines CAT-based review to immigration proceedings rather than extradition; the court further found no substantive due process claim because the Secretary had determined it was not more likely than not that the petitioner would be tortured.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involves allegations of race and sex discrimination and unlawful retaliation at an IHOP restaurant in Memphis that occurred in 2005 and 2006 while 786 South LLC owned and operated the franchise. The EEOC filed suit against 786 South and later joined Tripoli II, Inc., the successor owner that purchased the franchise in 2007, on a theory of successor liability. Tripoli II moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be held liable because it lacked actual notice of the suit. The court denied the motion, reasoning that constructive notice can be sufficient for successor liability under the MacMillan test and that a fact-finder could conclude Tripoli II had constructive notice because the case was a public record for two months before the purchase and Tripoli II, a sophisticated party, failed to conduct due diligence.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Joe M. Ray, Jr., who was terminated from his position at FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., and subsequently sued the company under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act alleging that his termination was due to age discrimination. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claim. The core reasoning was that the employment agreement signed by the plaintiff included a provision shortening the statute of limitations to six months from the event, and the lawsuit was filed more than six months after his termination, making the claim time-barred. The court also addressed and rejected arguments regarding notice of the defense and later denied a motion for reconsideration based on newly submitted evidence.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which Loeb Properties, Inc. (LPI) sued Federal Insurance Company after the insurer denied a claim under a crime coverage policy for losses from an employee's theft of funds from the personal checking account of LPI's CEO and his wife. LPI had reimbursed the Loebs for the stolen amounts and sought coverage, arguing that the funds were held by LPI or that it was legally liable for them. The court granted Federal's motion for summary judgment and denied LPI's as moot, holding that the policy's ownership provision did not apply because LPI did not own the funds, the funds were not stored at LPI, LPI had no authority to remove or direct the use of the money, and LPI was not legally liable for the property under Tennessee law. The decision turned on the plain language of the policy's coverage for property owned by, held by, or for which the insured was legally liable, finding none of those conditions met.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involves plaintiff Jeffrey Longs, an African-American employee at Ford Motor Company's Memphis facility, who sued under Title VII and the ADEA alleging race and age discrimination as well as retaliation. Longs claimed that Ford unilaterally raised production goals from 400 to 600 picks per shift, which disproportionately affected older Black workers, denied his vacation requests while approving those of younger white employees, issued unwarranted discipline, and ultimately terminated him after he complained internally about discriminatory practices. The court granted Ford's motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing many of the discrimination and retaliation claims for lack of evidence of pretext, material adversity, or causation, but denied it in part on certain disparate impact and retaliation issues tied to the production goal change and protected complaints. The core reasoning centered on applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, requiring Longs to show that Ford's legitimate business reasons were pretextual and that he suffered adverse actions connected to his complaints or protected characteristics.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved the EEOC bringing a Title VII race discrimination claim on behalf of Ernestine Tolar and a class of African American workers, alleging that Paramount Staffing, Inc. systematically favored Hispanic workers for warehouse job placements while denying assignments to Black applicants despite available positions and prior experience. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the EEOC failed to conciliate in good faith, citing insufficient information provided about class members and allegedly inflated settlement demands based on an unverified class of two hundred individuals. The court denied the motion, finding that the EEOC had conducted extended negotiations, supplied general descriptions of the class and damages calculations, used approximate rather than definitive class-size figures, and disclosed names of over two hundred potential class members early in litigation, with no evidence of misrepresentation or bad-faith tactics.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Barnett v. Tipton County Board of Education, three high school students sued the school board and officials after being disciplined for creating fake MySpace profiles of school staff containing sexually suggestive comments about students. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their First Amendment free speech rights, Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, and various Tennessee state tort claims including defamation and false light. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all federal claims on the grounds that the students' speech was not protected as it caused disruption and they received adequate process, and declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims due to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act while noting lack of evidence.

free speechcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involves plaintiff Diane Brock's claims against her former employer Positive Changes Hypnosis, LLC, and its owners after a Department of Labor investigation determined she was owed overtime pay under the FLSA for her commission-based sales role. Brock alleged that the defendants retaliated against her for the DOL matter by threatening to reduce her commission rate, forcing her to return overtime payments, and ultimately constructively discharging her; she also asserted a defamation claim based on statements made by one owner implying an inappropriate relationship with a coworker. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissed the case with prejudice, and later denied Brock's motion for relief from that judgment. It reasoned that Brock failed to show a materially adverse employment action for the FLSA retaliation claim and could not establish the elements of defamation under Tennessee law, including that the statements were false or caused special damages. The court also excluded certain expert testimony as irrelevant to the dispositive issues.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved Defendant Prince, who was charged with conspiracy and various financial crimes, including money laundering and health care fraud, related to physical therapy companies billing Medicare. The jury convicted him on one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and thirty-eight counts of money laundering, while acquitting on the health care fraud charges. Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal or a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence on the knowledge element and issues with the definition of "proceeds." The court denied the motion, finding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict on the defendant's knowledge that the funds came from health care fraud and that the transactions involved proceeds under the applicable definition.

criminal lawhealthcare

This case involved former employees at Bryan Foods' hog processing plant who sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking unpaid wages and overtime for time spent donning, doffing, and cleaning specialized protective equipment before and after their shifts. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice. The core reasoning was that Bryan had relied in good faith on a 2002 Department of Labor opinion letter interpreting FLSA provisions regarding compensable activities, which established a complete statutory defense under 29 U.S.C. § 259.

labor & employment