Elmo Bolton Hunter

This case involved a former employee suing her mall management company employer for sexual harassment under Title VII and Missouri law, retaliation, negligent supervision and retention, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on an alleged sexual assault by a coworker and subsequent work assignments. The court addressed the employer's motion for summary judgment on each claim, applying standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and reviewing the timeliness of EEOC charges along with the facts of the employment relationship. The court determined that the plaintiff's tort claims for negligence and emotional distress were barred by the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law as the exclusive remedy, since the incident occurred on the employer's premises involving a coworker during the employment period. It rejected the plaintiff's arguments distinguishing the claims based on timing or clock-in status and found no genuine issues of material fact warranting trial on those counts.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

In this case, Floyd McDaniel sued AlliedSignal under Title I of the ADA, alleging that the company failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his mental health condition so that he could retain the DOE security clearance required for his job at the Kansas City Plant, which produces nuclear weapons components under a government contract. AlliedSignal moved for summary judgment, arguing that security clearances are solely a matter between the employee and the government. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the duty of reasonable accommodation under the ADA is limited to modifications of job requirements or working conditions to enable performance of essential job functions and does not extend to curing or mitigating a disability to prevent revocation of a government-issued security clearance. The court reasoned that national security determinations are committed to the Executive Branch, that requiring the employer to intervene in clearance decisions would be beyond the ADA's scope and potentially unreasonable, and that the essential nature of the work involves classified information protected by federal regulations.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved a former employee who sued her employer, alleging that her termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Missouri Human Rights Act due to her carpal tunnel syndrome and hand injuries, and that it also constituted retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment under the standard requiring no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, while drawing reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor and noting that discrimination cases often rely on inferences. The analysis centered on whether the plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA, specifically examining if her impairment substantially limited a major life activity such as working, based on her medical restrictions, job history, and ability to perform other roles after the injuries.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a federal declaratory judgment action brought by Vigilant Insurance Company against the administrator of David Langhorn's estate, seeking a ruling that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify under a personal liability policy for claims in an underlying state-court wrongful death suit arising from a 1998 murder at KCI Airport. The policy excluded coverage for intentionally caused bodily injury, and the insurer had reserved its rights while providing a defense in the state action. Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the federal case pending final resolution of the Missouri wrongful death proceedings. The court granted the stay, reasoning that the Declaratory Judgment Act affords discretion to decline or defer jurisdiction when a parallel state action is pending, and that considerations of judicial economy, comity, and the limited ability of the insurer to control or be bound by the state litigation favored allowing the state case to proceed first.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff employee suing his employer, the Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay overtime compensation for time spent on call during winter months for potential emergency roadwork. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the on-call time was not compensable working time. The reasoning centered on the fact that the on-call policy did not significantly restrict the employee's personal activities, as he was not required to remain at home or by the phone, could engage in various pursuits, and was called in only about once per week, distinguishing it from cases where on-call time was deemed compensable due to greater burdens.

labor & employment

The case involved a claim by Vanguard Packaging, Inc., a Missouri corporation, that Midland Bank and its agents used economic duress to force Vanguard to purchase $1,000,000 in Midland Bancor stock it did not want, by linking the stock purchase to approval of a needed $250,000 loan extension that was rolled into a larger $1.6 million credit facility. Vanguard sought to have the transaction declared voidable and set aside. The court entered judgment for the defendant, finding that Vanguard failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was deprived of its free will or forced into the purchase. The reasoning was that Vanguard needed operating capital, Midland had no duty to extend further credit, the defendant did not create Vanguard's financial difficulties, and a superior bargaining position alone does not constitute economic duress.

business & regulatory

This case involved claims of race discrimination and retaliation by William Evans, an African-American music teacher employed by the School District of Kansas City, Missouri, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Missouri Human Rights Act. After Evans criticized the new principal's racially insensitive remarks at a staff meeting and complained about being singled out for extra lesson plan requirements, the School District did not renew his teaching contract despite his performance evaluations meeting standards. A jury found for Evans on the retaliation claim, awarding $25,002, but against him on race discrimination; the court independently reached the same conclusion on retaliation under Title VII. The court held that the stated reasons of poor planning and insubordination were pretextual and that the non-renewal was motivated by Evans's protected complaints about discrimination. The court ordered Evans's reinstatement to a teaching position and directed submission of a fee application.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves a Missouri resident suing Nissan Japan, Nissan America, and driver Teddy Rowe for injuries sustained in a 1989 car accident in Germany while riding in a 1988 Nissan Stanza, with claims based on negligence and products liability related to missing rear seat restraints. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court applied Missouri's long-arm statute, which requires a tortious act within the state giving rise to the claim, and found that none of the alleged conduct, manufacturing, sale, or accident occurred in Missouri. Because the plaintiff failed to establish jurisdiction over any defendant, the court did not reach constitutional due process issues and also denied transfer due to venue and potential limitations problems.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is a patent infringement action in which a jury found that Standard Havens' patent was valid and willfully infringed by Gencor, awarding over $8 million in damages for infringement and breach of contract. The Federal Circuit affirmed validity and infringement but reduced the number of infringing sales and vacated the speculative future-sales portion of contract damages, remanding for recalculation; it also left in place a conditional stay of the permanent injunction pending further district court review. On remand, Gencor moved to stay the injunction and all proceedings until final resolution of a separate PTO reexamination that had found certain claims unpatentable. The court denied the stay, holding that the reexamination is a distinct administrative proceeding with different standards that does not control or void the affirmed judicial determinations of validity and infringement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant Kirk L. Shelton, who was indicted in June 1990 on two counts of distributing crack cocaine but was not arrested until August 1992 because the government failed to execute the arrest warrant despite knowing his location. Shelton moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming the two-year delay violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court granted the motion to dismiss after applying the Barker v. Wingo balancing test, concluding that the government's negligent delay was unjustified, the defendant asserted his right in a timely manner, and the delay caused prejudice by impairing his ability to recall events or locate witnesses.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a motion to dismiss cross-claims in a federal tax dispute under 26 U.S.C. § 6672, which imposes personal liability on responsible individuals for a corporation's unpaid employment taxes. Defendants Amerson and Wilson filed cross-claims seeking indemnification or contribution from co-defendants, with Amerson asserting no jurisdictional basis and Wilson citing a 1986 mutual release and settlement agreement. The court dismissed both cross-claims, holding that no federal common law or statutory right exists for contribution or indemnity in § 6672 cases and that the agreement did not demonstrate intent to cover such tax assessments. The decision emphasized that allowing recovery would undermine the statute's penal and deterrent purposes.

taxesfederal power

This case is an action for judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of a claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, based on alleged impairments including heart conditions after a 1987 myocardial infarction, back problems, lung issues, varicose veins, and anxiety. The plaintiff had received initial denials, an unfavorable ALJ decision after hearings, and an Appeals Council affirmation that he was not disabled. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, affirming the agency's decision. The core reasoning was that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's findings that the plaintiff's subjective complaints were not credible due to inconsistencies with medical records and other evidence, that no treating physician had opined he was disabled, and that he could perform his past relevant sedentary work as a bullet inspector.

healthcare

In United States v. Marzullo, two defendants convicted by a jury of arson under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) for unlawfully destroying a building by fire challenged a magistrate's order detaining them without bond pending sentencing. The court conducted a de novo review and concluded that arson qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(f)(1)(A), 3143(a)(2), and 3156(a)(4), requiring detention unless specific exceptions apply, which they did not here. The reasoning centered on the statutory definition encompassing offenses that by their nature involve a substantial risk of physical force against persons or property, supported by the defendants' use of large volumes of flammable liquids near civilian areas and emergency responders, as well as legislative history and sentencing guidelines. The court denied the defendants' motions to reverse the detention order.

criminal law

This case was a declaratory judgment action in which Green Construction Company sought a ruling that its insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Company, had a duty to defend Green and indemnify it against counterclaims by Kansas Power & Light arising from the settling and cracking of a dam Green had built. The parties submitted the issues of coverage and the duty to defend on stipulated facts and cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted Green’s motion and denied National Union’s, holding that the dam damage constituted an “occurrence” under the comprehensive general liability policy and that the Broad Form endorsement provided coverage despite policy exclusions for injury to the insured’s own work or product, because the defective soil testing had been performed by subcontractors. Under Kansas law, the possibility of coverage triggered the insurer’s duty to defend.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved Pearlie Clark's appeal of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, claiming onset of disability in July 1982 due to back pain and related symptoms. Clark's insured status expired on March 31, 1985, and the Secretary found she was not disabled prior to that date based on limited pre-1985 medical records and an adverse credibility finding regarding her testimony. The district court reviewed the decision under the substantial evidence on the record as a whole standard, weighing the evidence including the vocational expert's testimony that Clark could not perform her past work or any gainful employment. The court reversed the Secretary's decision and remanded for an award of benefits, determining that the record supported a finding of disability before the expiration of insured status.

healthcare

In Barchers v. Union Pacific Railroad, a former conductor and brakeman sued his employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, claiming that a provision in a voluntary reserve board agreement reduced pay for employees eligible for full railroad retirement annuities in a manner that discriminated based on age. The plaintiff had been eligible for the reserve board due to his seniority but chose not to apply and instead retired without ever being subject to the pay reduction. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing because he had suffered no injury-in-fact: the policy was never applied to him, and his decision not to apply was not motivated by any futile gesture or fear of certain rejection. The opinion explained that non-applicants generally may challenge only discriminatory hiring or promotion practices, not employment policies that apply only after an individual joins a program.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this diversity case governed by Missouri law, the plaintiffs sued a television station for libel after a news report on drug-related crime in their neighborhood showed a four-second image of their house while stating that trouble had been traced to two juveniles and a dozen suspected drug houses, with the plaintiffs alleging the broadcast insinuated their involvement in illegal activities. The plaintiffs, who were not named or otherwise identified in the report, claimed they suffered harassment and shunning but acknowledged they had not pleaded or shown special damages. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the claim failed as libel per quod due to the lack of special damages and as libel per se because the statements and image were not unequivocally defamatory on their face without extrinsic facts or innuendo to connect the unidentified house to the plaintiffs and imply their involvement in drug dealing. The court reasoned that, under Missouri precedents distinguishing the two forms of libel, the broadcast required viewers to supply additional knowledge and inferences, rendering it not actionable per se.

free speechtorts & liability

The United States sued Raytown Lawnmower Co., Greenlawn Fertilizer, Inc., and Louis E. Mattoon to obtain judgments on tax assessments and foreclose on related property interests. Defendants Mattoon and L. Mattoon Development Company asserted eight counterclaims against the United States for conversion, prima facie tort, outrage, money received, libel and slander, misrepresentation, violation of public policy under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, and attorney’s fees, based on an IRS agent's seizure of property. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing seven counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under sovereign immunity and one for failure to state a claim, while allowing the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights claim to survive. The core reasoning was that suits against the United States require an explicit congressional waiver, the Federal Tort Claims Act and other cited statutes do not extend to tax collection activities or confer standing here, and no such waiver applied to most of the asserted claims.

taxesfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned debtor Scarlett's attempt to reopen her Chapter 7 bankruptcy case more than four years after discharge to claim a legal malpractice cause of action as exempt property under Missouri law. The court decided to sustain the trustee's objection, holding that the claim was not exempt from the bankruptcy estate. The core reasoning was that Missouri's exemption statute (Mo.Rev.Stat. § 513.427) covers only property beyond all legal process, including creditor's bills; because the malpractice claim was not purely personal, was assignable, and could be reached by such equitable remedies, it remained part of the estate despite being unliquidated and not subject to ordinary attachment.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This diversity case arose from franchise agreements between the plaintiffs and defendant Minuteman Press, with the plaintiffs asserting claims of fraud in the inducement and, alternatively, breach of contract. The defendant moved to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York pursuant to a forum selection clause requiring litigation to be commenced and tried in New York courts or the specified federal district. The court held that the clause did not govern the fraud claims because the "hereunder" language limited its scope to suits seeking enforcement of the agreements, whereas fraudulent inducement attacks the validity of the agreements themselves and thus falls outside the clause. Weighing the § 1404(a) factors, with the clause receiving significant but not dispositive consideration and the plaintiffs' choice of forum otherwise prevailing, the court denied the transfer motion.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability