Aleta Arthur Trauger

This case concerned a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act brought by employees of a Tennessee group home facility against their employer, alleging that the company's automatic 30-minute meal break deduction policy violated the Act because workers were required to remain on duty and provide patient care during those unpaid periods. The defendant had entered a settlement with the Department of Labor that resulted in some employees signing WH-58 waiver forms accepting back wages, prompting disputes over the validity of those releases given the pending lawsuit. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the collective action and permission to file late claims, while granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion to reconsider a prior order. It held that the waivers were invalid because employees were not informed that accepting payment was optional or that a private lawsuit covering the same claims was already underway. The core reasoning focused on the lack of full disclosure to employees about their rights and the existence of the parallel litigation when they signed the forms.

labor & employment

The case involved plaintiff Jack Long, Jr., a former alderman who claimed he was validly appointed to fill a vacancy on the Coopertown, Tennessee Board of Aldermen at an October 2008 meeting, but whose appointment the newly elected mayor and board refused to recognize on the grounds that it violated Tennessee's Open Meetings Act due to lack of public notice. Long attempted to participate in a subsequent board meeting, leading to his removal by officials and claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of due process, free speech, and excessive force, along with related state-law tort claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants (the city and individual officials), concluding that the officials' actions were reasonable based on legal consultation, no constitutional violations occurred, qualified immunity applied, and state claims lacked merit. Core reasoning included analysis of the Open Meetings Act's notice requirements, video evidence contradicting excessive force allegations, and procedural doctrines like collateral estoppel not barring the defense.

civil rightsfree speechprocedureelections

This case involves Angela Norman, an African-American Certified Nurse Technician at Rolling Hills Hospital, who alleged that she faced racial discrimination from coworkers and her supervisor through insensitive comments and differential treatment, and that she suffered retaliation after reporting the conduct to human resources. The defendant moved for summary judgment on her Title VII claims of race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain aspects such as the hostile environment and constructive discharge claims but allowing the discrimination and retaliation claims, particularly regarding reduced work hours, to proceed to trial. The core reasoning applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and raised genuine issues of material fact sufficient to rebut the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for the adverse actions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involves a pension fund seeking to recover withdrawal liability from International Comfort Products (ICP) under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act after a trucking company ceased operations. Previously, the court ruled ICP was not an "employer" liable for contributions because it was not a signatory to the collective bargaining agreement, but the Sixth Circuit remanded for consideration of whether ICP had an obligation under applicable labor-management relations law. The threshold issue addressed is whether the district court or the National Labor Relations Board should determine such obligations. The court decided that the federal district court is the appropriate venue for this determination. The reasoning centers on the distinction between claims arising under ERISA and those directly under the National Labor Relations Act, allowing courts to adjudicate the former even if they touch on labor relations issues.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Hornberger v. Tennessee, a former state employee sued the State of Tennessee, the Department of Human Services, and its Disability Determination Services unit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging that he was constructively discharged due to age-based harassment and performance scrutiny that forced his early retirement at age 54. The defendants moved to dismiss the ADEA claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), asserting sovereign immunity. The court granted the motion, holding that the Eleventh Amendment and principles of state sovereign immunity barred the federal claims because Congress had not validly abrogated immunity for ADEA suits against states and the defendants had not waived it. The court further determined that DDS was not a distinct entity from DHS for immunity purposes and that receipt of federal funds did not affect the analysis.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved two mothers suing on behalf of their seventh-grade sons, who were members of a middle school basketball team, alleging they were subjected to repeated hazing and sexual misconduct by eighth-grade teammates in the school locker room, including "lights out" groping incidents and a blindfolded sit-up prank involving contact with a naked buttocks after the coach had described the prank to players. The suit, brought against the school board, coach, and related defendants, asserted claims under Section 1983 and related statutes for failure to prevent the abuse during school-sponsored activities. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, while denying a motion to strike expert affidavits as moot. The core reasoning focused on the sufficiency of evidence regarding the defendants' knowledge of the misconduct, their responses to specific incidents, and whether certain constitutional claims like equal protection could proceed based on the record.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff suing her former surgeon for medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and intentional misrepresentation after back surgery in which pedicle screws were allegedly placed negligently and the doctor allegedly misrepresented his experience with the procedure. The defendant moved to dismiss under Tennessee's Medical Malpractice Act for failure to file a certificate of good faith with the complaint, which requires prior expert consultation. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff showed good cause for the delay because she had consulted an expert beforehand and was awaiting complete medical records from the defendant, and that at least part of the misrepresentation claim did not require expert testimony and could proceed regardless.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involves two housekeeping employees at a Tennessee state park who sued the State of Tennessee under Title VII after their supervisor engaged in inappropriate conduct at a 2007 Christmas party and they later cooperated with an internal investigation into that conduct. Having conceded their sexual discrimination and hostile work environment claims, the plaintiffs asserted only a retaliation claim based on alleged subsequent actions including stalking, ostracism, increased workload, and property tampering by supervisors and coworkers. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The core reasoning examined whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of materially adverse actions causally connected to their protected activity to create a genuine issue of material fact under the Rule 56 standard.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a dispute between telecommunications provider Level 3 Communications and contractor Floyd over damage to Level 3's buried fiber-optic cable and conduits during excavation work for storm drains along a highway in Tennessee. Level 3 alleges that Floyd's employees struck the cable without proper notification, leading to an outage and requiring repairs costing over $45,000, while Floyd disputes the timing, extent of its involvement after the initial incident, and causation of the ultimate damage. The court denied Floyd's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact on key issues including the sequence of events, whether further excavation occurred, and the precise cause of the fiber damage and outage. It also denied Level 3's motion in limine to exclude Floyd's causation expert, ruling that the testimony was admissible under evidence rules despite objections to its methodology and conclusions.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved a Tennessee-based seller of durable medical equipment suing a Florida lead-generation company and its two officers for fraud and related claims arising from disputed payments on invoices that had allegedly been assigned to a third party. The individual defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that their contacts with Tennessee occurred only in their corporate capacities and were otherwise insufficient. The court denied the motion, finding that the officers' alleged fraudulent emails directing payment to the Florida company constituted purposeful availment of Tennessee, that the fraud claims arose directly from those contacts, and that exercising specific jurisdiction was reasonable under the Sixth Circuit's Mohasco test and due process requirements.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns whether three individual guarantors remain liable under personal guaranty agreements for amounts owed by Kemper Design Center, Inc. to Crossville, Inc. under a second promissory note. Kemper signed an initial note for $239,479.29 secured by the guaranties, then executed a second note that replaced the first and added over $114,000 in new debt; the guarantors declined to sign updated guaranty forms. The court granted summary judgment in part, holding the guarantors liable only for the unpaid balance attributable to the original note (approximately $36,966) and not for the additional principal, because the guaranties were limited to that specific indebtedness and the second note constituted a material modification exceeding the parties' intent. The court denied summary judgment as to Kemper itself, which conceded liability for the full second-note balance.

business & regulatory

The case concerns a dispute between construction company Forrest Construction and its insurer Cincinnati Insurance over whether Cincinnati had a duty to defend Forrest in a state-court lawsuit brought by homeowners alleging negligent and defective construction work that caused property damage. Forrest sought coverage under a commercial general liability policy for defense costs in the underlying action, which included claims for negligence, breach of contract, and related theories premised on poor workmanship. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on Forrest's claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, bad faith, and consumer protection violations. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, reasoning that the policy's 'your work' exclusion did not necessarily bar coverage if the damaged work involved subcontractors and that the underlying complaint alleged facts potentially constituting an 'occurrence' causing property damage.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case concerned claims by the owners of U.S. Patent No. 7,045,168 against Alsa Corp. for false marking of its Crystal FX paint product as "patent pending" and for direct and induced infringement of the patent through sales of the product. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, relying on facts deemed admitted due to the defendant's failure to respond to requests for admissions and its lack of legal representation. As a result, the court imposed a fine of $7,138 on Alsa for false marking, awarded $23,555.40 in damages to the plaintiffs, and permanently enjoined Alsa from further infringing the patent.

business & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Dujuan Thompson, a bus operator employed by defendant Davidson Transit Organization (DTO), who alleged retaliation for his efforts to form a new union, file an NLRB petition, and publicly criticize workplace morale and union representation issues through radio appearances and other forums. DTO moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of causation or adverse actions tied to protected conduct. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, reasoning that Thompson's supervisor lacked knowledge of his union and speech activities, no credible causal link existed between those activities and the minor disciplinary measures taken, and other claims were undermined by factors such as judicial estoppel from Thompson's bankruptcy filings.

labor & employmentfree speech

Edward Jerome Harbison, sentenced to death in Tennessee for first-degree murder, filed a § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of the state's three-drug lethal injection protocol, arguing it created a substantial risk of severe pain if the initial anesthetic was improperly administered. After a bench trial, the district court found the protocol violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and issued an injunction, but the Sixth Circuit reversed following the Supreme Court's decision in Baze v. Rees, holding that Tennessee's protocol was substantially similar to Kentucky's upheld protocol and did not create a demonstrated risk of severe pain. On remand, the court denied Harbison's motion to amend the complaint and granted the defendants' motion to vacate the injunction and enter judgment for the defendants in accordance with the appellate mandate.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves licensed practical nurses who provided in-home care under an arrangement among staffing companies and healthcare agencies, suing multiple defendants as joint employers for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act after a Department of Labor investigation found they were employees rather than independent contractors. The plaintiffs sought back wages, liquidated damages, and fees, alleging violations by entities including Alternative Healthcare Solutions, Volunteer Staffing, Home Health Care of Middle Tennessee, and related individuals. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, determining that certain defendants qualified as employers and that the nurses were entitled to overtime compensation for hours over forty per week based on the control exercised over their work, hiring processes, and payroll arrangements, while finding insufficient evidence of willfulness for some claims and resolving factual disputes on joint liability.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs who allege that ozone emitted by Honeywell F300 electronic air cleaners caused one plaintiff severe respiratory illness and chemical hypersensitivity after installation in their home, leading to claims including strict liability and negligent failure to warn, fraud, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment, with some claims asserted on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers seeking refunds. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to strike class allegations and dismiss the amended complaint. It dismissed the fraud claims without prejudice for inadequate pleading of reliance, dismissed the Magnuson-Moss class claim, and struck the remaining class allegations due to problems with ascertainability and typicality, as the class included many members who suffered no injury from the product. The court allowed the individual failure-to-warn and related claims to proceed, finding that Honeywell had a duty to disclose under Tennessee law and that the class definition issues did not apply to the individual claims.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves an employment discrimination claim in which the plaintiff challenges a series of disciplinary actions by his employer, Davidson Transit Organization, alleging they stemmed from his statements and actions regarding working conditions and union representation rather than misconduct. During summary judgment briefing, the plaintiff moved to strike 166 of the defendant's 241 uncontroverted material facts, claiming they were excessive and not cited in the supporting memorandum in violation of local rules requiring a concise statement of facts. The court denied the motion to strike, finding that the detailed facts in the statement of material facts supplied relevant background and foundation for the eight alleged incidents of misconduct and related issues, and that separating the facts from the legal memorandum was a reasonable way to address page limits in a factually complex case.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a receiver appointed for Mid-America Energy, Inc. and Mid-America Oil & Gas, LLC suing attorney Bryan Coffman and his Kentucky law firm for allegedly misusing and misdirecting escrow funds connected to prior securities fraud judgments against the companies. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim under the Tennessee Securities Act. The court denied the motion in full, finding that the defendants' contacts with Tennessee investors and companies were sufficient to support specific personal jurisdiction, that venue was proper in the district, and that the complaint adequately alleged the defendants' active role in the securities transactions to support liability under the TSA.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a products liability suit brought by Ruth Smith against Pfizer after her husband Richard Smith committed suicide in 2004, two months after being prescribed Neurontin for chronic pain; the plaintiff alleges that the drug's undisclosed side effects of depression and suicidality caused the death and asserts surviving claims for negligence, breach of implied warranty, failure to warn, and fraudulent concealment. The opinion addresses four pending motions in limine filed by both parties, primarily challenging the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court denies all four motions, concluding that the proposed experts possess sufficient qualifications in fields such as epidemiology and pharmacovigilance, that their methodologies are reliable, and that their testimony on documents and general causation issues is relevant and will not improperly invade the jury's province.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure