Odell Horton

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

business & regulatoryenvironmenttorts & liability

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose after a mistrial was declared in a federal criminal trial when the jury reported it was deadlocked and could not reach a unanimous verdict. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, for judgment of acquittal, and to obtain grand jury testimony, while the government sought measures to protect the jury selection process for any retrial. The court denied the double jeopardy motion, holding that manifest necessity existed for the mistrial under precedents such as United States v. Perez and United States v. Jorn, given the deadlock along with factors like extensive publicity, indications of improper juror contacts, and evidence that some jurors may have been unwilling to follow the law. It also denied the other defense motions but granted in part the government's request, ordering that the retrial use jurors drawn from a different division of the district to minimize outside influences and ensure an impartial panel.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Allstate Insurance Company's declaratory judgment action against its insured, Earline Fitzgerald, and others, seeking a determination that it had no duty to defend or indemnify under a business liability policy after a two-year-old child was seriously injured in Fitzgerald's nail shop by ingesting cleaning fluid left by an employee. The accident occurred in August 1985, but Allstate was not notified until January 1988, over two years later. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, holding that the insureds' failure to provide prompt notice breached a condition precedent to coverage under the policy and Tennessee law. The court further ruled that a non-waiver agreement signed by the insured preserved Allstate's rights to deny coverage and that Allstate's partial payment of benefits did not constitute waiver or estoppel.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case was a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by plaintiff Stephanye Pease against her employer Alford Photo Industries, Inc. and its president Jimmy Alford, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 along with pendent state claims including assault and battery. The plaintiff claimed she was subjected to repeated unwelcome touching by Alford, culminating in an incident on September 27, 1983, which led to her constructive discharge the next day. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct constituted both quid pro quo sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, entitling the plaintiff to judgment. It awarded back pay, front pay, compensatory damages of $2,500, and punitive damages of $10,000, with the parties later entering a stipulated consent judgment to resolve all claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

The case concerned Bannum, Inc.'s request for a Certificate of Use and Occupancy to operate a Community Treatment Center for federal offenders at a Memphis property zoned to allow transitional homes by right. The City of Memphis and its Board of Adjustment denied the certificate, classifying the facility as a pre-release center subject to different rules. The court ruled that Bannum's center meets the zoning ordinance definition of a transitional home and that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, violating the company's due process and equal protection rights. It therefore granted declaratory and injunctive relief requiring issuance of the certificate. The decision rested on evidence that the center provides transitional re-entry services to already-released residents and lacked any rational basis for singling out Bannum compared to similar operations.

civil rightspropertybusiness & regulatorycriminal law

C.P. Payne sued Illinois Central Gulf Railroad under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging race discrimination in the denial of a Chicago seniority date upon his 1979 transfer to Memphis, delay of that transfer, and denial of bid positions including fork lift operator, stockman, and crane operator. The court granted judgment to the defendant and dismissed the case after trial, concluding that Payne had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the railroad intentionally treated him less favorably than similarly situated employees because of his race. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims, the court found the employer's actions rested on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds such as the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, Payne's lack of qualifications for certain roles, and the absence of evidence that race motivated the decisions.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Myron Lowery, a Black television reporter at WMC-TV, who sued his employer alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Lowery claimed he was denied promotion from weekend to weekday news anchor positions due to his race while white employees with less experience advanced, was paid less and denied written contracts despite performing similar work, and faced retaliation when he was removed from the air after filing the lawsuit. After a nine-day trial, the court found that WMC-TV had applied an impossible standard for Lowery's advancement compared to a potential-based standard for white reporters, discriminated in pay and contracts, and retaliated maliciously for the lawsuit filing. The court awarded Lowery backpay of $74,120, $100,000 in compensatory damages, and $100,000 in punitive damages, plus attorney fees.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a civil lawsuit filed by Myron Lewis Lowery, Jr. against WMC-TV in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. After the court issued a Memorandum and Order on April 9, 1987, the defendant moved under Federal Rules 52(b) and 59(e) to amend findings of fact and vacate that order. The parties reached a settlement agreement, with the plaintiff agreeing not to oppose the motion, to avoid the costs and uncertainties of further litigation including a potential appeal. The court granted the motion to vacate the prior order and entered an order dismissing the case as settled with prejudice.

procedure

This case involves a Section 1983 lawsuit by plaintiffs against Memphis police officials in their official capacities for serious personal injuries inflicted by an off-duty officer with a known disciplinary history. On remand from the Supreme Court in Brandon v. Holt, the district court reconsidered the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, which argued that the trial did not address the Monell "policy or custom" requirement for municipal liability. The court denied the motion, holding that the existing record and findings of fact established deficient police department policies—including a code of silence and inadequate complaint procedures—that insulated supervisors from knowledge of officer misconduct and thereby caused the constitutional violations. It further ruled that the complaint, as effectively amended under Rule 15(b) to conform to the proof, stated a valid claim for relief against the municipality.

civil rightsprocedure

This case was a class action lawsuit brought by residents and property owners near a chemical waste burial site in Hardeman County, Tennessee, operated by Velsicol Chemical Corporation from 1964 to 1973, seeking damages for personal injuries and property damage caused by contaminated well water from chemicals that escaped the site. The court, after a 65-day trial with five representative plaintiffs, found Velsicol liable under theories of strict liability, negligence, trespass, and nuisance. It awarded compensatory damages ranging from $350,000 to $2.3 million to the individual plaintiffs and $7.5 million in punitive damages for the class, along with prejudgment interest, based on evidence of gross negligence and willful disregard for health and the environment given Velsicol's knowledge of the chemicals involved.

environmenttorts & liabilityproperty

The case involved two black male employees, two white male employees, and their union suing Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division (MLG&W) over its voluntary affirmative action plan's 'priority posting' provisions, which altered the existing seniority-based job posting system under a Memorandum of Understanding. Plaintiffs argued the plan violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (via 42 U.S.C. § 1983), and prior court orders from related discrimination cases. The court decided that the plan was legally permissible under federal law, denying the requested injunctive relief. It held that the plan satisfied strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII because MLG&W had a compelling interest in remedying substantial underrepresentation of black and female employees stemming from past discrimination, and the plan was narrowly tailored, temporary, and imposed only limited burdens on non-preferred groups without unnecessarily trampling seniority rights or stigmatizing employees.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a tenant who filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition after a state court issued a final judgment granting her landlord possession of an apartment and damages for unpaid rent. The bankruptcy court granted the landlord partial relief from the automatic stay, and the tenant appealed. The district court vacated the bankruptcy court's order and remanded the case, holding that the Sixth Circuit's In re Glenn decision on curing mortgage defaults after foreclosure judgments did not apply to leasehold interests. The court reasoned that the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 could still allow the tenant to cure the lease default through the Chapter 13 plan and reaffirm the lease, as leasehold property differs from mortgaged real property.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a federal prisoner, Mr. Gandy, who filed a habeas corpus petition claiming he was improperly denied credit for time spent on parole after his parole was revoked due to new convictions, arguing that lack of advance notice about possible forfeiture violated due process. The court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss, rejecting the due process claim. It reasoned that forfeiture of parole time is automatic under statute when a parolee is convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment, that Gandy received sufficient notice of the new convictions to prepare any defense or mitigation, and that he suffered no prejudice from the lack of specific notice about forfeiture consequences. The court also found that Gandy was not required to exhaust administrative remedies under the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved the U.S. Department of Labor seeking to enjoin Ely Group, Inc., its subsidiaries, and secured creditor Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc., from transferring or shipping goods produced at company facilities in Tennessee and Arkansas. After a hearing, the court granted a preliminary injunction barring the movement of inventory, assets, and related accounts receivable tied to work performed by employees between February 3 and February 19, 1985, when those employees had not been paid in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court found that Citicorp, as a perfected secured creditor in possession of the goods, planned to sell or relocate them in interstate commerce. The decision rested on the statutory purpose of preventing goods made in violation of wage requirements from entering the market and creating unfair competition with compliant employers.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a patent infringement suit by Alco Standard Corporation against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and third-party defendant Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Alco alleged that Westinghouse's ultrasonic inspection device, used by TVA to examine turbine rotors in its power plants, infringed U.S. Patent 3,960,006 for a non-destructive testing method and apparatus. Under the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, TVA may use patented technology but must pay reasonable compensation to the owner. After a bench trial limited to liability, the court found the patent valid and infringed by the defendants' use of a similar device, entering judgment for the plaintiff; the court noted evidence that Westinghouse had copied the patented technology and could not deny its utility.

business & regulatoryproperty