In this Title VII case, plaintiff Sandra Davis alleged that Fidelity Technologies Corporation and its site manager Harold Loeblein retaliated against her by refusing to hire her or recommend her for a technician position after she had filed EEOC charges of sexual harassment against Loeblein while he was her supervisor at a prior employer. Following a six-day trial, the court found that Loeblein, acting as Fidelity's agent, unlawfully declined to consider or hire Davis because of her prior EEOC complaints, even after a new site manager took over. The court awarded Davis back pay of $134,174.46, ordered reinstatement to a Tech II position or front pay for up to three years, and referred the issue of attorney fees to a magistrate judge.
This case concerns a 1978 contract for the sale of a hazardous waste disposal facility in Emelle, Alabama, under which the plaintiffs were entitled to quarterly royalty payments equal to 12.5% of all revenues generated by the site for 21 years (then 1% thereafter) and the defendant was required to maximize the facility's operations to increase those payments. The plaintiffs sued for breach of the payment and maximization provisions, along with fraud, misrepresentation, and suppression of material facts after the defendant began excluding certain revenues from royalty calculations, shifting operations to affiliated entities, and reinterpreting the contract language without notice. The defendant counterclaimed for alleged overpayments and argued the royalties applied only to disposal revenues. The court determined that the contract terms were clear and unambiguous, that a promise to pay a specified percentage of all revenues must be honored as written, and that the parties' original understanding and conduct confirmed inclusion of broader revenues beyond just landfilling.
In Grauer v. Federal Express Corp., plaintiff Gail Grauer, a Federal Express manager, sued the company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after being passed over for a senior management promotion in favor of a male colleague. She alleged gender-based disparate treatment and disparate impact from the company's promotional testing and interview process, as well as retaliation for filing an internal EEO complaint and EEOC charge. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and closed the case. It reasoned that Grauer failed to present specific evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on any claim, including statistical proof of disparate impact under Watson v. Ft. Worth Bank & Trust standards, evidence rebutting the company's legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons under McDonald and Chappell, or proof of adverse action and causation for retaliation under Christopher v. Stouder Memorial Hosp. The decision applied Rule 56(c) standards from Celotex and Anderson, finding the record insufficient to require a trial.
This case involved a breach of contract claim by Zubaz, Inc. against Federal Express for failing to collect an $8,436 C.O.D. payment on a shipment from Minnesota to Texas as required by the parties' airbill agreement. Federal Express moved for partial summary judgment, arguing its liability was capped at $100 under the airbill's terms and the incorporated service guide. The court granted the motion, holding that federal law governs the liability of air carriers for shipments and that the contract expressly limited recovery to $100 when no higher value was declared on the airbill, which Zubaz had not done. It reasoned that the airbill and service guide formed the binding contract between the parties, and such liability limitations are enforceable under federal precedent even in cases of alleged carrier negligence. The court entered judgment for Zubaz in the amount of $100 and dismissed the case.
In this bankruptcy case, Decor Noel Corporation, a manufacturer of Christmas decorations that had filed for Chapter 11, sought to recover a $13,600 payment made to Yuletide Kreations, Inc., a supplier, as a preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) because it occurred while the debtor was insolvent and within 90 days of filing. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the payment was made in the ordinary course of business and thus excepted from avoidance under § 547(c)(2), and the District Court affirmed this decision after de novo review. The court reasoned that there were no unusual actions to facilitate the payment, the payment terms were consistent with prior practices, and the debtor's operations, including borrowing from its lender, followed established patterns without changes in collateral or lending agreements. The decision emphasized that the ordinary course exception supports continuing business dealings with financially troubled companies.
This case involved a bankruptcy debtor, Decor Noel Corporation, seeking to avoid preferential payments totaling $14,677.52 made to its freight forwarder, V. Alexander & Co., within the 90-day preference period before filing for Chapter 11. The district court, after de novo review, affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision that all but one payment of $1,133.20 were excepted from avoidance under the ordinary course of business exception in 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2). The core reasoning was that the payments followed the established pattern of dealings between the parties over seven years, with no changes in the manner or method of transactions, and were consistent with normal financial relations despite the debtor's cash flow issues.
