Philip P. Simon

Robin Eastes sued ACS Human Services under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her termination from a call center job violated her First Amendment rights because it was in retaliation for criticizing the privatization of state benefits services. The court granted summary judgment to ACS, dismissing the case. Although Eastes had initially pursued a theory that ACS acted jointly with the state, she abandoned it, and the court rejected her argument that ACS was a state actor under the public function theory. The court reasoned that while operating the call center for benefits inquiries might involve a public function, the specific decision to terminate an employee was not a traditionally public function attributable to the state.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

In this case, Annastacia Alalade sued her former employer AWS Assistance Corp. under Title VII for sexual harassment after a single severe incident of assault by her supervisor, along with related retaliation and state-law claims. The court had previously denied AWS summary judgment on the harassment claim, agreeing that AWS met the first prong of the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense through its anti-harassment policy and prompt response, but finding a factual issue on the second prong because Alalade's four-day reporting delay did not necessarily show unreasonable failure to mitigate. AWS moved for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that single-instance harassment cases should dispense with the second prong entirely. The court denied reconsideration, holding that the Supreme Court established a mandatory two-prong defense without exception for isolated incidents, that policy reasons for employee reporting still apply, and that lower courts may not modify the framework established by higher authority.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Maxwell v. South Bend Work Release Center, a disabled work-release inmate sued Imperial Stamping Corporation, a private employer, alleging it refused to hire him due to his disability while participating in a prison work program. The plaintiff brought claims under Title II of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Section 1983. The court granted Imperial's motion for summary judgment, holding that the company is not a public entity subject to Title II liability, does not receive federal financial assistance required for Rehabilitation Act claims, and that the Section 1983 claim was abandoned due to lack of response. The decision rested on statutory definitions and precedent showing that private contractors with state entities do not become public instrumentalities merely through business relationships.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedurelabor & employment

Jerry Herron applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income claiming disability from bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and related mental impairments beginning in 2006. An administrative law judge denied the claims after finding Herron not credible and determining that his impairments did not prevent him from performing simple, repetitive work. The district court remanded the matter to the ALJ for further proceedings, holding that the ALJ had improperly ignored or failed to weigh evidence supporting Herron's claim, including reports from examining psychologists and psychiatrists, testimony from his former employer's HR manager, and hearing witnesses, while over-relying on a non-examining state agency psychologist. The court also denied Herron's requests for attorney fees without prejudice as premature or incomplete.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which State Farm sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify foster parents Donald and Patricia Nokes, or others, against a state-court lawsuit brought by former foster child Nathan Evans alleging sexual and physical abuse while living in the Nokes' home. The court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that Evans qualified as an "insured" under the homeowner's policy because he was a resident under age 21 in the care of the Nokes, triggering the policy's explicit exclusion of coverage for bodily injury to any insured.

civil rightsfamily lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case centers on allegations by biotechnology company CoMentis against Purdue University professor Arun Ghosh and the Purdue Research Foundation for mishandling confidential information and intellectual property under consulting and licensing agreements, including claims that Ghosh filed independent patent applications on pyrrolidine compounds developed using CoMentis data. CoMentis asserted ten counts including breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, fraud, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment. The court granted Purdue's motion for judgment on the pleadings in part by dismissing the unjust enrichment claim with prejudice due to the existence of valid contracts covering the subject matter, but denied it as to the contract and misappropriation counts; it granted Ghosh's motion to dismiss the fraud and constructive fraud claims without prejudice for failure to plausibly allege intent or unconscionable advantage, while allowing CoMentis leave to amend those counts. The rulings were based on the pleadings, incorporated agreements, and standards requiring plausible factual allegations rather than conclusory statements.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

The case involved a dispute over Dr. Richard Burns' pension benefits under an ERISA-governed plan after his death. His widow, Cheryl Burns, claimed the benefits, but the plan administrators denied her claim based on consent forms she signed waiving her rights in favor of Dr. Burns' three sons from a prior marriage. The court granted summary judgment to the plan, finding that the administrators did not abuse their discretion in honoring the spousal consent forms despite the absence of a witness signature, as the forms substantially complied with ERISA requirements and reflected the parties' clear intent.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a former sales representative suing her telecommunications employer for improperly calculating and paying sales commissions and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as Indiana wage statutes. The court granted partial collective action certification under the FLSA for overtime claims covering all inside sales representatives who worked unpaid overtime after a certain date, based on evidence that employees were similarly situated and required notice to opt in. It denied Rule 23 class certification for the state-law claims due to differences in individual commission calculations and prior dismissal of Wage Payment Statute claims. The court also allowed amendment of the complaint to add a Wage Deduction Statute claim but denied amendments for breach of contract and other claims because of disclaimers in the compensation plan and statutory exemptions for salaried employees.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this bankruptcy case, National City Mortgage held a lien on debtor Charles Hershman's Indiana property, but the mortgage acknowledgment listed the prior owner's name instead of Hershman's. After Hershman filed Chapter 7, the trustee sought to avoid the mortgage under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) as if she were a bona fide purchaser without constructive notice, and the bankruptcy court agreed. The district court reversed, holding that Indiana Code § 32-21-4-1, enacted in 2007 and clarified in 2008, validates recorded mortgages despite technical acknowledgment defects and applies retroactively to provide constructive notice. The court reasoned that the curative statute overrode prior case law requiring strict compliance and that the short interval between amendments showed legislative intent to clarify rather than change the law.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute over a lease of farmland in Indiana for hog production, where the Kuspers (landlords) sued Poll and Poll Farms (tenants/guarantors) for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment after the tenants allegedly failed to pay full rent or vacate on time. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the breach claim based on an unsigned second lease amendment and the unjust enrichment claim. The court denied dismissal of the breach of contract claim, finding that part performance and oral modification could overcome the statute of frauds and the lease's writing requirement under Indiana law. However, the court granted dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim because an express contract governed the same subject matter, making equitable recovery unavailable. The decision applied Indiana contract and statute of frauds principles in a diversity action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Robert Comer, a tenant in a public housing facility operated by the Gary Housing Authority (GHA), sued GHA and its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that defendants retaliated against him for his public criticism of alleged mismanagement and fraud by threatening, harassing, and intimidating him in violation of his First Amendment rights. The defendants filed motions to dismiss. The court granted the motions in part by dismissing all claims against several board members and the official-capacity claims against the remaining individual defendants, as such claims were redundant with the direct claim against GHA, but denied dismissal of the claims against GHA and the individual-capacity claims against certain defendants because the complaint plausibly alleged municipal liability and retaliation under governing pleading standards.

free speechcivil rights

Marshall Fincher sued the South Bend Housing Authority after his eviction from public housing and also sued the South Bend Heritage Foundation after it denied his application for another apartment. The Housing Authority removed the case to federal court, where the court addressed whether it had jurisdiction over claims seeking review of the state-court eviction judgment. The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims against the Housing Authority and therefore remanded those claims to state court. As to the Foundation, the court granted summary judgment because Seventh Circuit precedent establishes that Section 8 housing applicants have no due-process right to a hearing on a denial, Fincher presented no evidence supporting his Fair Housing Act discrimination or retaliation claims, and he identified no contract supporting a third-party-beneficiary theory.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

Larry Cameron, a prisoner, sued prison doctor Gerald Myers under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment after Myers stopped Cameron's prescribed treatment for Crohn's disease, leading to the development of Pyoderma Gangrenosum and resulting pain and disfigurement. The doctor failed to appear or defend the case, resulting in an entry of default. The court granted default judgment, taking the well-pleaded allegations as true and finding that Myers exhibited deliberate indifference by discontinuing necessary care and failing to examine Cameron's new symptoms, and awarded $250,350 in actual and compensatory damages plus costs; punitive damages were denied because the evidence did not show malice or reckless disregard of Cameron's rights.

civil rights

The case involved a bankruptcy debtor who had personally guaranteed a company's delinquent pension contributions to a union fund under a labor agreement; after the debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the fund approved his pension benefits but withheld payments to offset the preexisting debt from the guarantee. The fund took this action unilaterally without seeking relief from the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court found a willful violation of the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) and awarded compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy judge acted within his discretion in determining that the fund's self-help collection efforts required punishment to deter future violations.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a protracted copyright dispute over ownership and use of the song 'Wonders of Indiana,' involving multiple lawsuits, appeals, and sanctions between plaintiff Cheryl Janky and defendants including the Lake County Convention & Visitors Bureau. Janky moved to enforce terms in a December 2, 2008 email as a binding settlement agreement that would resolve the various actions through a mutual global release. The court denied the motion, holding that Janky failed to demonstrate a valid offer and acceptance or a meeting of the minds on all essential terms. The email was deemed too indefinite to constitute an enforceable contract, as it did not adequately address the complexities of dismissing multiple pending cases across jurisdictions or the obligations of all parties involved.

procedureproperty

In Cruse v. Hook-Superx, Inc., an African-American CVS store manager claimed he was terminated on the basis of race in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after being fired for accepting tickets to minor-league basketball games as part of a merchandise barter arrangement. The employer moved for summary judgment, asserting the discharge was solely for policy violations. The court denied summary judgment on the discriminatory-termination claims because a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff had obtained supervisor approval, never used the tickets himself, and that similarly situated non-African-American employees who violated the same gift and entertainment policies were not disciplined. Summary judgment was granted on the failure-to-promote and breach-of-contract claims. The decision rests on the existence of genuine disputes of material fact that must be resolved at trial.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Kesling v. Kesling, a father who sold controlling interest in the family orthodontic products company to his son sued the son for fraud, alleging that the son had concealed improper royalty payments he received from the company before the 2004 transaction and that this nondisclosure induced the sale. The plaintiff sought rescission of the agreements to regain control of the corporation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the actual and constructive fraud claims. The core reasoning was that the son had no duty to disclose the royalty issue because the father never inquired about it during negotiations and the parties dealt at arm's length, so there was no actionable fraud under Indiana law.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an appeal from a bankruptcy court's confirmation of Chapter 11 reorganization plans for Millburn Peat Company and Green Thumb of Indiana over the objection of unsecured creditor PVP Industries. PVP argued that the plans violated the fair and equitable requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1129 by allowing the secured creditor 1st Source Bank to receive more than the value of its claim. The district court affirmed the confirmation, holding that a stipulation between the parties established that the Bank held a first priority security interest in all of the debtors' property, including post-petition assets, and that the plans properly accounted for the going-concern value in securing the Bank's claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Jermaine Dodd was convicted of murder in Indiana state court and sought a direct appeal of his conviction through appointed appellate counsel. His lawyer used Indiana's Davis/Hatton procedure to remand the case for a post-conviction claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, stating there were viable direct appeal issues like trial errors and sufficiency of the evidence, with the implication that all issues would be pursued in a consolidated appeal if the post-conviction claim failed. After losing that claim, counsel appealed only the denial and abandoned the direct appeal issues, leaving no appellate review of the trial record despite Dodd's requests. Dodd then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming denial of effective assistance of appellate counsel. The court granted the petition, concluding that counsel's misuse of the procedure violated Dodd's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and ordering the state to allow a direct appeal within sixty days or release him.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a deputy sheriff with multiple work-related injuries who sued his county employer under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging denial of reasonable accommodations and return to work in a non-patrol position, after failing to file a charge with the EEOC. The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA claim because the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies. The core reasoning was that the plain language and structure of the ADA show Title I exclusively governs employment discrimination (including by public employers) and requires exhaustion, while Title II addresses public services and does not reach employment.

civil rightslabor & employment