The case involved 600 Marshall Entertainment Concepts, LLC, which sought injunctive and declaratory relief after the City of Memphis revoked its Compensated Dance Permit for operating an adult nightclub with compensated dancers in the Central Business District. The 1993 Ordinance had banned adult entertainment in that district, and the company claimed it was entitled to “grandfathering” as a prior nonconforming use. After a bench trial and remand from the Sixth Circuit, the district court held that 600 Marshall failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it qualified for grandfathering. The court found that adult entertainment at the properties had been discontinued well before the 1993 ban, with no CDP issued since at least 1991 and no continuous nonconforming use established through the relevant period; it also concluded there was no valid claim for damages arising from the permit revocation.
This case involves the EEOC's Title VII lawsuit against Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc., alleging racial discrimination and a hostile work environment on behalf of African-American employees, along with related claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the employee responsible for the racial slurs was not a supervisor, that the conduct was not severe or pervasive, and that complaints were not properly raised under the union agreement. The court denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact about the pervasiveness of the racial harassment, the supervisory role of the employee in question, the employer's response to complaints, and the lack of an effective anti-harassment policy. Evidence included repeated use of racial epithets, threats, graffiti, and differential discipline, which a jury could find created a racially hostile environment attributable to the employer.
This case involves a class action lawsuit by over 300 current and former cable installation technicians employed by FTS USA, LLC and its parent UniTek USA, LLC, who allege that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay proper overtime compensation under a piece-rate pay system. The defendants moved to decertify the class, arguing that individual claims varied too much for classwide resolution, and sought summary judgment on grounds including insufficient evidence for damages, lack of a classwide damages method, and no willful violation. The court denied the motion to decertify, finding the plaintiffs' claims substantially similar and suitable for class treatment. It also denied summary judgment, determining that sufficient evidence existed for a factfinder to award damages on a representative basis, material facts were disputed regarding willfulness, and claims could not be dismissed for lack of discovery on most plaintiffs.
This case is a qui tam action brought by relator Samuel Adam Cox, III, under the False Claims Act against Smith & Nephew, Inc., alleging that the company sold medical devices manufactured in Malaysia to the Department of Veterans Affairs and General Services Administration in violation of the Trade Agreements Act by misrepresenting their country of origin. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FCA's public disclosure bar and for failure to state a claim with particularity under Rule 9(b). The court denied the motion, holding that the relator qualified as an original source with direct and independent knowledge of the information underlying the claims, making the public disclosure bar inapplicable, and that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged the essential elements of the FCA violations with the required specificity.
The case involves Sadeo Alkabsh, owner of Liberty Mart, challenging the USDA's permanent disqualification from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for alleged trafficking in food stamps based on patterns in electronic benefit transfer transactions. Plaintiff sought a temporary stay of the disqualification under 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(17) pending judicial review. The court denied the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, noting that the store had continued operating for over five months after the sanctions were imposed.
This case involves a VA psychiatrist who disclosed his recovery from drug and alcohol addiction to his supervisor, received lowered performance evaluations and a reassignment, filed an EEO complaint alleging disability discrimination and harassment, and then faced further actions such as a proposed fitness-for-duty exam and being marked AWOL. The plaintiff sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of retaliation through temporal proximity between his protected EEO activity and adverse actions, and that the defendant had not articulated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason covering the full pattern of challenged conduct.
