This case involved a group of Akron firefighter/medics who sued the city alleging that promotional examinations for Lieutenant and Captain positions had an illegal disparate impact based on age and race, in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws including Title VII and the ADEA. After a jury found liability in favor of the plaintiffs on their discrimination claims, the court addressed multiple post-trial motions from both sides seeking to alter the judgment, for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur of damages. The court denied the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, leaving the liability verdict intact, but granted a new trial limited solely to the issue of damages. It reasoned that the jury's uniform awards for past and future losses failed to account for differences among plaintiffs, such as whether they were promoted, passed the exam, or had retired, indicating the jury lost its way on damages calculations.
The case involved the City of Akron's combined sewer system, which collects both wastewater and stormwater in the same pipes and discharges over two billion gallons of untreated or partially treated sewage annually into the Cuyahoga River and other waterways, creating risks from pathogens and limited dilution capacity. The United States moved for entry of an unopposed consent decree that would have set a schedule for Akron to reduce these Combined Sewer Overflows through infrastructure upgrades and other measures under federal environmental law. The court denied the motion, concluding that the decree's timeline was too lengthy and uncertain because it depended on ongoing negotiations between the parties, with any disputes subject to a multi-month dispute-resolution process that could lead to repeated court involvement rather than delivering prompt, complete relief.
This case is a sexual discrimination lawsuit brought by a union administrative assistant and secretary-treasurer against her local union, its president Howard Barnes, and the international union, alleging hostile work environment harassment through sexually derogatory comments and a physical assault, along with intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment to the international union on all claims and to all defendants on the emotional distress claim, while denying summary judgment on the Title VII and Ohio Rev. Code § 4112 claims against the local union and Barnes in his official capacity, and on the state claim against Barnes individually. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to show severe emotional distress proximately caused by the conduct or any basis for holding the international union liable, but genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the harassment claims under federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
The case involved the sentencing of defendant Thomas Cunningham, who had pled guilty to one count each of receipt and distribution of visual depictions of minors in sexually explicit conduct, receipt and distribution of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. The court calculated an advisory guidelines range of 121 to 151 months based on an offense level of 32 and criminal history category I, with no departures applied. After reviewing the evidence including the images and videos, the impact on victims, and Cunningham's history and statements, the court imposed a sentence of 121 months on counts 1 and 2 and 120 months on count 3, to run concurrently. The core reasoning was that this term was sufficient but not greater than necessary under the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), treating the offense consistently with other crimes while exercising independent judgment rather than presuming the guidelines range appropriate.
This case involved former officers of the United Transportation Union who faced internal union disciplinary charges after supporting a proposed merger with another union and intervening in related federal litigation to defend that merger. The plaintiffs alleged that the charges were retaliatory and violated their free speech rights under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The court treated the motion as one for a preliminary injunction and granted it, ordering the union to halt further proceedings on the charges, restore the plaintiffs to their positions, and maintain the status quo. The decision rested on findings that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to their statutory rights from the discipline, and that the balance of harms favored injunctive relief.
In this tax refund case, the Estate of Timken sought over $4 million in generation-skipping transfer tax plus interest, claiming exemption under a statutory grandfather clause for pre-1985 trusts. The dispute centered on the validity and applicability of Treasury Regulation § 26.2601-1(b)(1)(v)(A) regarding constructive additions from the exercise of powers of appointment. Following the Sixth Circuit's decision in Estate of Gerson v. C.I.R., the court applied Chevron deference to uphold the regulation as a permissible interpretation of an ambiguous statute. It further found that the regulation applied to the facts of the Timken trust modifications and distributions after September 25, 1985. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, denying the refund.
