The case involved U.S. Airways seeking a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) for allegedly conducting a work slowdown via a safety campaign to pressure the airline during ongoing collective bargaining negotiations, in violation of the status quo requirements under the Railway Labor Act. The court granted the motion for preliminary injunction, finding that evidence including statistical increases in flight delays, fatigue calls, maintenance write-ups, and training delays by East pilots beginning in May 2011 was linked to union communications and actions. The core reasoning was that these tactics constituted unlawful self-help rather than genuine safety efforts, as they were designed to disrupt operations and gain leverage in contract talks, while West pilots' performance remained consistent with historical averages.
The case involves Mohammed Hossein Saeedi, an Iranian national granted asylum in the United States, appealing USCIS's denial of his application to adjust status to permanent resident. USCIS had determined he was inadmissible based on a willful misrepresentation of material fact when obtaining a B-2 tourist visa in 1999. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, reversed the agency's determination, and remanded the matter for USCIS to reopen and adjudicate the application under the appropriate legal standard within 45 days. The court's reasoning centered on the conclusion that the agency's finding of inadmissibility was not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
The case involved homeowners Ilona Aylward and Valentina Krasnova suing FEMA over disputed payments under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy for damages from two separate floods at their North Carolina property. Plaintiffs alleged improper deductions from the second flood claim and sought additional compensation beyond what was already paid. The court converted the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment due to extensive discovery and extrinsic evidence. It granted summary judgment to FEMA on the first flood claim because a contractor had released further payments via settlement, and on the second flood claim because plaintiffs failed to submit a required second proof of loss within the policy deadline. The reasoning emphasized strict compliance with NFIP policy terms, including timely proof-of-loss filings, as mandated by federal regulations.
The case involved a former Duke Energy line technician seeking continued long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored ERISA plan after he stopped working in 2001 due to chronic pain from prior injuries and surgeries. Aetna initially approved benefits for 24 months under the plan's "usual occupation" definition but later denied ongoing benefits, finding that the plaintiff could perform the essential functions of other occupations for which he was reasonably suited by education, experience, or training. The court granted summary judgment to Aetna and dismissed the case, holding that the denial was the product of a deliberate, principled reasoning process supported by substantial evidence from medical records and reviews, and that the administrator's decision could not be overturned merely because the court might have reached a different conclusion.
Donald Webb sued his former employer K.R. Drenth Trucking after being fired six days following a tractor-trailer rollover, claiming the termination was retaliation for seeking workers' compensation benefits under North Carolina's Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act and that statements to prospective employers were defamatory. The company moved for summary judgment, asserting Webb was discharged for causing a preventable accident by speeding and that the statements were true. The court denied the motion, concluding that disputed facts existed regarding the accident's cause, the company's motivation for termination, and the truth of the statements made about Webb.
In this case, Michele Russell, a longtime sales representative for BSN Medical, alleged that she experienced sexual harassment from colleague Ken Krull during a 2007 company dinner and subsequent interactions, and that Krull retaliated against her after she complained, including through negative performance reviews and threats after he became her supervisor in 2008; she also claimed breach of contract regarding compensation. The court granted summary judgment to BSN on the sexual harassment claim, finding insufficient evidence of a severe or pervasive hostile work environment that affected her employment, and on the breach of contract claim due to lack of proof regarding compensation or good faith duties. However, the court denied summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim, determining that Russell presented enough evidence of protected complaints followed by adverse actions to allow a jury to decide whether retaliation occurred. The decision focused on the elements required for each claim under federal employment law and the summary judgment standard.