This case involves an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by African-American employees, including Marvin Wright, against Casino Queen, Inc., alleging racial discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, along with related state claims. The court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment specifically as to plaintiff Marvin Wright, who asserted claims of race discrimination and hostile work environment. The court denied the motion, concluding that Wright presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact on both claims, including testimony about disparate treatment, discipline, and a pervasive racially hostile environment supported by human resources directors' statements. The ruling noted that disputed facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and that the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find discriminatory motivation.
In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Lawrence Burton, an African-American bartender employed by defendant Casino Queen since 1995, sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging racial discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment based on differential treatment in discipline, scheduling, promotions, and supervisor interactions compared to white employees. The Casino Queen moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of discrimination or a hostile environment and asserting the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding discriminatory treatment and the effectiveness of the employer's anti-harassment policy due to employee fears of retaliation, while deferring any decision on severance.
The case is a putative class action brought by Walsh Chiropractic against StrataCare alleging improper application of PPO discounts through breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and RICO. StrataCare removed the case from state court to federal court, and the court first confirmed subject matter jurisdiction based on the federal RICO claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction, as well as diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. On the motion to dismiss, the court analyzed the RICO claim and determined that repeated instances of allegedly misleading billing over time could satisfy the pattern of racketeering activity requirement for a closed-ended scheme. The opinion also recited the elements of an ICFA claim in the context of silent PPO arrangements.
business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedurehealthcare
The case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in an adversary proceeding where Globaleyes Telecommunications, Inc. sued Verizon North, Inc. over alleged overbilling under interconnection agreements governing telecommunications facilities, seeking damages for pre-petition state law claims and objecting to a proof of claim for unpaid charges. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of two state law counts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its grant of summary judgment to Verizon on the remaining count objecting to the claim. The court reasoned that bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 does not extend to pre-petition state law disputes, that the terms of the applicable interconnection agreements did not allow the claimed reductions or adjustments to charges, and that Globaleyes had not timely raised billing disputes as required by the contracts.
This ERISA case under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) arose from the denial of coverage for neurorehabilitative treatment at a specialized facility following the plaintiff's brain injury in a 2006 car accident; after the parties settled the benefits claim at a conference, the only remaining issue was the amount of attorney fees. The plaintiff sought $62,542.15 in fees for work by multiple attorneys, including an out-of-state lawyer who provided services pro bono and was not admitted to the court, while the defendant proposed roughly half that amount. The court reviewed billing records, hourly rates, hours worked, and local rules on admission and pro hac vice practice, then awarded a reduced fee amount after excluding or adjusting charges for non-admitted counsel, pro bono efforts, unnecessary staffing, and unrelated expenses.
The case involved a putative class action by plaintiff Quinten Spivey against defendant Adaptive Marketing, LLC, alleging that Adaptive improperly charged his credit card for a year-long membership program without his authorization after he called a telemarketer to purchase an Atkins diet product. Spivey brought claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment under Illinois law in federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The court granted Adaptive's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice. It applied the standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, requiring the non-moving party to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, and found that Spivey had not done so. The court also addressed procedural matters including jurisdiction, venue, and the lack of need for Rule 23(e) notice prior to dismissal of the uncertified class claims.