Articles Posted in Federal Law

by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago reversed a district court decision granting summary judgment where the court found that the expert testimony for the plaintiff was unreliable. Donald Schultz was a painter for American Motors Corp. from 1981 until 1989. Benzene was a substance in the paint that was used.Mr. Schultz died in 2006 from an acute myeloid leukemia (AML) related to benzene exposure. 

The wife of Mr. Schultz, Joann, filed a lawsuit against Akzo Nobel Paints (formerly known as the Glidden Co.), asserting that the benzene in the paint caused Mr. Schultz’s AML and subsequently his death.

Akzo moved for summary judgment using the expert testimony of its expert toxicologist, David Pyatt. Pyatt’s opinion was that the benzene exposure did not cause Mr. Schultz’s AML because only workers exposed to more than 40 parts per million (ppm) years of benzene developed AML.

Continue reading

by

Philip Crosby worked for Cooper B-Line Inc., a manufacturer of electrical components and tools.  A portion of Crosby’s middle finger was severed while he was working on the job on July 28, 2010. Crosby filed a claim in the Illinois Industrial Commission under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.  He asked for his medical bills to be paid and for temporary total disability benefits. 

Crosby returned to work in September 2010.  In a conversation with his manager, Crosby allegedly argued that he did not intend to refrain from using the unsafe work practice that led to his injury.  His employer, Cooper, then suspended him for 3 days without pay as a disciplinary measure.  A grievance was filed on behalf of Crosby by his union. 

A few days later, Crosby was accused of violating a different safety regulation and was fired. At this point, the union representing workers at Crosby  asked that his termination be referred to as a permanent lay off without recall rights. That would make him eligible for unemployment benefits and a neutral job reference for the future.

Continue reading

by

In 2007, Illinois amended the Wrongful Death Act to add language saying, “including damages for grief, sorrow and mental suffering.” The language was added to the description of available wrongful death damages.

According to this Chicago federal court case, Hammond v. System Transport, Inc., the Illinois legislature’s intentions in amending the wrongful death statute “was to compensate for the spouse’s and next of kin’s emotional consequences from the end of a decedent’s life, including the process or manner of death.”  The damages, grief, sorrow and mental suffering resulting from the manner of death may be compensable under the Wrongful Death Act, according to the case opinion.

However, the court held that “evidence of defendant Austin’s [the truck driver’s] negligence, such as the allegation that he violated rules limiting the hours he could work before resting, which resulted in his falling asleep and running a stop sign, is not relevant to plaintiff’s claim.” 

Continue reading

by

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision by a federal district court judge in the Central District of Illinois, finding that an employee handbook that was silent as to termination of a nonprobationary employee compared to the section on probationary employees was insufficient to overcome Illinois’ presumption of at-will employment. 

Steven Cromwell was a lieutenant in the Momence Police Department. Cromwell was involved in an incident of alcohol-related misconduct in April 2010. After an investigation, it was determined that Cromwell lied to his superiors and was insubordinate. 

Several months later, Cromwell received a letter from the City Council stating that his charges had been filed with the Police Committee and that a recommendation had  been made to terminate him. The letter also stated that Cromwell was invited to attend a hearing in which he would be given an opportunity to reply to the charges made against him. 

Continue reading

by

When a company is acquired in an asset sale, successor liability applies for pending claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, even if the acquiring company disclaims liability for such claims. 

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed the decision by a district court judge in a case involving the asset sale of JT Packard & Associates.  Packard provided maintenance in emergency technical services for equipment designed to protect computers and electrical devices from being damaged by power outages. 

In 2006, Packard’s stock was sold to S.R. Bray Corp.  In 2008, several workers sued Packard for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Continue reading

by

In a breach of contract case, the issue was whether a party defendant was a necessary defendant in this federal court case filed in Chicago. Two of the defendants, Nafeesa Moosabhoy and Aymen Tyebjee, moved to dismiss the complaint that Shabbir and Munira Nomanbhoy filed in federal court. 

The court found that the complaint satisfied the requirements for diversity jurisdiction because Shabbir and Munira were residents of California. They sought relief in the amount of $1.3 million in damages. Moosabhoy and Tyebjee  were residents of either Illinois or Texas. However, another obligor under the agreement, Zehra Vahanvaty, who Moosabhoy and Tyebjee alleged breached the contract, was a resident of California. Vahanvaty was claimed to be a necessary party under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a result diversity of citizenship would be destroyed. For diversity of citizenship federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff and defendant must be residents of different states. 

In support of the motion by Moosabhoy and Tyebjee, they argued there was no diversity of citizenship. They relied on the Seventh U.S. Circuit of Appeals stating that, “A contracting party is the paradigm of an indispensible party.”

Continue reading

by

The Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision by the district court judge regarding the burden of proof in a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) case.

Ronald Williams was a substitute U.S. Postal Service letter carrier who had parallel parked his truck to visit a friend.  The plaintiffs in this case, David Furry and Diane Nye, were driving by that home when their vehicle collided with the parked U.S. Postal Service truck, which was driven by Williams.

Furry and Nye testified that they did not see the postal truck before the impact. Williams, realizing that regardless of the outcome, he would be fired for the use of his truck to visit a friend, offered Furry $500 not to report the incident.  

Continue reading

by

Lisa Learmonth filed suit against Sears in a case that was litigated in the federal court in the Southern District of Mississippi.  Learmonth was injured in 2005 in a car accident with a Sears employee.  She was seriously injured and filed suit against Sears for her damages.  A jury in the district court found Sears liable and entered a verdict in the amount of $4 million in compensatory damages, including $2.2 million in non-economic damages for pain and suffering.

The verdict was appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that Mississippi’s caps law on non-economic damages held firm and thus, the verdict of the jury was reduced to conform to that Mississippi law. The Mississippi law caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases at $500,000, and in all other civil actions the cap is set at $1 million. The Mississippi law was found by the federal court of appeals to be constitutional.

The lawyers for Sears applauded the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision, saying that caps are good for business in states like Mississippi, which are trying to attract manufacturers and other large corporations.

Continue reading