District Court, E.D. Arkansas — appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson
District Court, W.D. Arkansas — appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson
Emmett v. L.T v. Aerospace & Defense Co.
District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1992-02-25 · cited 1×
The case involved a former quality control supervisor at L.T.V. Aerospace and Defense Company who sued after being forced to resign in 1988, alleging sex discrimination, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and tort claims for outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from an incident where she recorded estimated inspection data in a log book after missed rocket inspections. The court had previously dismissed her age discrimination and defamation claims. The court ruled for the defendant on all remaining claims, determining that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination or show that the stated reason for termination was pretextual, that her conduct did not support a public policy wrongful discharge claim, and that the defendant's actions were professional and did not rise to the level of outrageous conduct required for the tort claims.
labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability
Brogdon v. Exterior Design
District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1992-01-29 · cited 2×
This case involved a dispute between the Brogdons, Arkansas homeowners, and Exterior Design, a Louisiana company that performed home improvements on their property under a contract financed by an FHA-insured loan. The Brogdons argued that the contract was void because Exterior Design, as a foreign corporation, failed to register and comply with Arkansas's Wingo Act before doing business in the state. The court determined that the Wingo Act applied since the transaction occurred in Arkansas, rendering the contract, note, and mortgage void ab initio. However, relying on equitable principles to prevent unjust enrichment, the court ordered the Brogdons to pay $13,653.78 to the Resolution Trust Corporation, representing the cost of the improvements minus payments already made. Exterior Design did not participate in the trial and was no longer in existence.
business & regulatoryproperty
Deal v. Spears
District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1991-12-16 · cited 8×
Deal v. Spears was a civil action brought by former liquor store employee Sibbie Deal and her romantic partner Calvin Lucas against store owners Newell and Juanita Spears under the federal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2520, for secretly recording all incoming and outgoing calls on the shared business phone line over several weeks in 1990. The Spears installed the recorder in their adjacent home after a theft at the store, suspecting an inside job and also seeking to monitor employees' personal calls; the recordings captured intimate conversations between Deal and Lucas that were later disclosed to third parties, including Deal's estranged husband. After a bench trial, the court examined whether the interceptions fell within the consent or business-use exceptions of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) and related precedents, focusing on the absence of employee knowledge, the automatic continuous nature of the taping, and the Spears' additional motives beyond investigating the theft. The court concluded that the recordings violated the statute because they were not limited to legitimate business purposes and involved dissemination that risked tortious harm.
criminal lawlabor & employmentprocedure
Thacker v. Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield
District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1991-04-11
This case involved a dispute over whether an employer-provided group health insurance policy covered maternity expenses for the birth of the plaintiff's child. The child was conceived while the plaintiff was employed at Cook Chrysler and premiums were being paid, but born after his employment ended in January 1988 and no further premiums were remitted. The plaintiff argued that the policy language was ambiguous and should be interpreted to provide coverage based on the date of conception. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy was a contract governed by Arkansas law and that its terms unambiguously required ongoing premium payments for coverage to continue. The court found the plaintiff's proposed interpretation unreasonable after reviewing the full policy, including provisions stating that coverage terminates upon failure to pay premiums or termination of employment, subject only to optional COBRA continuation options that were not elected.
healthcarelabor & employment
Lambert Ex Rel. Brown v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1990-12-12 · cited 3×
This case concerned a medical malpractice claim arising from the treatment of Lee Brown at a nursing home operated by the defendants, where the plaintiff, his daughter Essie Brown Lambert, alleged injuries including malnutrition that led to his death. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff's pre-suit notice of intent to sue was defective under Arkansas Code Ann. § 16-114-204(a) because it failed to adequately specify injuries and damages and because the plaintiff was not the estate's executrix or administratrix. The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding that the notice sufficiently informed the defendants of the general nature of the claim and its purpose of promoting settlement, and that the plaintiff's status as "next friend" caused no prejudice. The court also granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to reflect her subsequent appointment as special administratrix of the estate, as the amendment added no new facts and justice required allowing her to proceed in that capacity.
healthcareproceduretorts & liability
Willis v. Watson Chapel School District
District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1990-10-12
This case involves a Title VII sex discrimination claim against the Watson Chapel School District, where the plaintiff was denied promotion to Junior High Principal. On remand from the Eighth Circuit, the district court calculated remedies consisting of front pay and back pay to compensate for the discrimination. For front pay, the court awarded the ongoing monthly difference between the plaintiff's salary as Assistant Junior High Principal and that of a Junior High Principal (using the school's pay scale), to continue until she receives the position, because an immediate promotion would displace an incumbent. For back pay, the court awarded $71,242 based on stipulated salary differences from 1983-1990 plus $13,841.03 in 6% prejudgment interest, rejecting offsets for the plaintiff's supplemental bus-driving income or differences in contract length. The core reasoning was that such awards are required to make the plaintiff whole under Title VII, with ambiguities resolved against the employer and strong presumptions favoring back pay absent extraordinary circumstances.
civil rightslabor & employment