John R. Adams

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

environmentfederal power

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

criminal law

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.

labor & employmentfree speech

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.

taxes

The case involved a wrongful death claim filed by Timothy McWilliams after his sister fell to her death during a tandem skydive when she slipped out of a harness manufactured by S.E., Inc., from a plane owned by SPOT, LLC. McWilliams alleged state-law product defect and failure-to-warn claims against the defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting preemption by the Federal Aviation Act and lack of any duty owed by SPOT. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part as to S.E., Inc., and granted SPOT's motion in full, holding that failure-to-warn claims were preempted and that no duty or agency relationship had been adequately pled against SPOT.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Siyam, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of violating the Lacey Act through the importation and sale of raw ivory and two counts of smuggling goods into the United States. The court calculated an advisory guidelines range of 41-51 months after applying enhancements for pecuniary gain, leadership role, and the value of the ivory exceeding $120,000, while denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because the defendant falsely denied the full scope of her smuggling activities over several years. After addressing objections and considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, including the need to avoid sentencing disparities with a co-defendant who received 82 months, the court imposed a sentence of 60 months imprisonment, a $100,000 fine, and a special assessment. The court noted this sentence was below the final advisory range but sufficient to serve the purposes of sentencing.

criminal lawenvironment

In Talley v. Hageman, Jameel Talley filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2003 state conviction for involuntary manslaughter, which arose from an incident where he, as a security guard, caused the death of a shoplifting suspect during an altercation; he claimed constitutional errors in the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on certain lesser-included offenses and in alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation to deny the petition. No objections were filed by either party within the required ten-day period. The district court therefore adopted the report and recommendation in full, dismissed the petition, and denied a certificate of appealability, citing the parties' apparent satisfaction with the magistrate's analysis and the need to conserve judicial resources.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves claims by Fencorp Co. and related plaintiffs against Ohio Kentucky Oil Corp. and its executives over investments totaling millions of dollars in oil and gas drilling programs between 2000 and 2003, which largely resulted in dry wells. Plaintiffs alleged federal securities violations under Sections 10(b) and 12(a)(1), Ohio Blue Sky law violations, and state claims for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, based on purported misrepresentations about costs, solicitations, and use of funds. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the federal claims were time-barred, the fraud claims lacked evidentiary support, and the state claims were barred by a statute of repose or preempted. The court granted the motion in part by dismissing the Section 12(a)(1) claims due to the statute of limitations but denied it as to the remaining claims, finding genuine issues of material fact on the fraud allegations, contract ambiguities, and no preemption or repose bar. The decision turned on application of limitations periods and the existence of factual disputes unsuitable for resolution at the summary judgment stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a motion to suppress evidence filed by defendant Demetrion Gross in a federal criminal prosecution. Gross was a passenger in a vehicle when an officer approached, observed alcohol, arrested him on an outstanding warrant, and later linked him via DNA and confessions to a firearm discovered in a jail bullpen after his booking. The court denied the motion, crediting the officer's account of the initial stop as lawful under community caretaking or reasonable suspicion and finding that any potential Fourth Amendment violation did not require exclusion of the gun, DNA results, jail calls, or statements to agents. It further held that Gross's post-invocation confessions were knowing and voluntary because he reinitiated contact and no coercion occurred. Core reasoning relied on credibility determinations, attenuation principles from cases like Hudson, and the absence of Edwards violations or improper inducements.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In this patent infringement lawsuit, Safeflight alleged that Chelton infringed its U.S. Patent No. 5,343,395, which covers a video display system for aiding aircraft pilots in landing on pre-programmed runways by generating a simulated three-dimensional cockpit view. Chelton moved for summary judgment on grounds that the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b), (g), and 103 due to prior art consisting of NASA-developed displays and publications made publicly available more than a decade before the patent application. The court granted summary judgment to Chelton after finding clear and convincing evidence that the NASA materials expressly or inherently disclosed every claim and limitation of the patent, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the patent as a simpler version of that prior work, and that Safeflight offered no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact; the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerns a dispute between Metro Hydroelectric Company and Metro Parks over access to property in a park for conducting studies required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as part of the licensing process under the Federal Power Act (FPA) for a proposed hydroelectric project on navigable waters. The plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that the defendant's refusal to allow entry preempted federal authority under the FPA and Supremacy Clause, while also asserting a related state quiet title claim. The court addressed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction after the defendant challenged it, ultimately concluding that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The reasoning centered on the complaint presenting substantial federal issues regarding FPA interpretation, preemption of local actions by federal licensing requirements, and rights to conduct mandated feasibility studies, as supported by precedents such as Grable & Sons and Town of Springfield.

federal powerenvironmentproperty

In Lemon v. BWX Technologies, Inc., retirees who had worked at a nuclear equipment plant sued their former employer and related plan entities under ERISA and Section 301 of the LMRA, claiming that increases in their out-of-pocket healthcare costs under a self-insured welfare benefits plan violated their rights while active employees were shielded from similar increases by a later memorandum of understanding. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims failed as a matter of law. The court denied summary judgment on the ERISA claim but granted it on the Section 301 claim, reasoning that the plan documents and collective bargaining agreements did not permit the company to shift costs to retirees in the manner alleged under ERISA, while the explicit terms of the agreements and the MOU's limited scope precluded a breach of contract claim.

labor & employmenthealthcare

Plaintiffs, participants in Goodyear's employee savings plans, sued the company and various directors and committees under ERISA Section 502, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties in the management and administration of plan assets, including the Goodyear Stock Fund, from 1998 onward. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, raising issues such as whether fiduciary duties were breached, whether defendants qualified as fiduciaries, and the adequacy of claims for failure to monitor, co-fiduciary liability, and related relief. The court granted the motion in part to limit certain claims and requested relief but denied it in general, permitting the plaintiffs to proceed because the complaint stated viable ERISA claims and ERISA lacks heightened pleading standards that would require dismissal without an evidentiary record.

labor & employment

In this habeas corpus case, petitioner Rasheem Matthews challenged his 1990 Ohio murder conviction for the shooting death of Wayne Price, claiming that prosecutorial misconduct—including the use of a jailhouse informant who allegedly received undisclosed benefits and other due process violations—deprived him of a fair trial. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition after finding no constitutional violation, but the district court declined to adopt that recommendation and instead conducted an independent review of the trial record, witness testimonies, and applicable legal standards such as those under AEDPA. The court analyzed conflicting accounts from eyewitnesses like Kenneth Lee and Theodore Roulette, the coroner's evidence, the informant's statements, and prosecutorial practices before determining the appropriate standard of review and whether relief was warranted.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a class of retirees who sued their former employer BWX Technologies, the employee welfare benefits plan, and the plan committee under ERISA and the LMRA, challenging the company's decision to increase retirees' out-of-pocket healthcare costs while shielding active employees from similar increases under a memorandum of understanding incorporated into a new collective bargaining agreement. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. It denied dismissal of the ERISA claim because the pleadings alone did not establish that the defendants were not acting in a fiduciary capacity when modifying benefits. It granted dismissal of the LMRA Section 301 claim because the retirees had not been represented by the union during negotiations, so they could not pursue a hybrid claim requiring proof of the union's breach of its duty of fair representation.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The Boler Company sued Watson & Chalin Manufacturing, Inc., claiming that Watson's Integra suspension infringed Boler's U.S. Patent No. 5,366,237, which covers improvements in beam-type axle suspensions for tractor-trailers. The district court granted Watson's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. It held that judicial estoppel and prosecution history estoppel prevented Boler from advancing claim constructions broad enough to cover the Integra product, because Boler had previously distinguished claims 1 and 13 in an earlier lawsuit and during reexamination by emphasizing features such as a 360-degree axle-encompassing weld and full surrounding of the axle that the Integra lacks. The court subsequently denied Boler's Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment, finding that the motion improperly sought reconsideration of arguments that could have been raised earlier.

business & regulatoryprocedure