District Court, N.D. Ohio — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Kling v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services of the United States
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1992-04-20 · cited 7×
This case involved a plaintiff's challenge to the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, claiming disability due to pulmonary disease, degenerative disc disease, and a psychiatric disorder. After the district court remanded for further evidence on the plaintiff's ability to perform past work or other medium work given his non-exertional limitations, the Secretary awarded benefits on remand starting in September 1984. The court addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Melkonyan v. Sullivan to conclude that the remand order was not a final judgment and that fees could be sought after the Secretary's favorable decision. The court awarded fees and expenses totaling over $22,000 after reviewing the hours and rates claimed, deducting only a small amount for non-litigation work. It entered final judgment affirming the Secretary's decision and granting the fees.
healthcareprocedurefederal power
Mumford v. Zieba
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1992-03-31 · cited 2×
This case involves plaintiff David Mumford, a longtime referee in the Lorain County Domestic Relations Court and registered Democrat, who was terminated shortly after defendant Judge Joseph Zieba, a Republican, assumed office following his 1988 election victory over Mumford's preferred candidate. Mumford sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his discharge violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it was motivated by his political affiliations and activities. Both sides moved for summary judgment, with Mumford arguing the dismissal was patronage-based and unlawful, and defendants contending it was performance-related and that political loyalty was a valid job requirement, while also asserting qualified immunity. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the actual reasons for the termination, whether Judge Zieba acted under color of state law, and whether any violation stemmed from a court policy or custom. It further held that the law clearly established political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement for the referee position, precluding qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.
civil rightsfree speechlabor & employment
Anonymous Fireman v. City of Willoughby
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1991-12-13 · cited 7×
This case concerned whether the City of Willoughby could require mandatory HIV testing of its firefighters and paramedics as part of annual physical examinations for fitness to serve, with the plaintiff alleging violations of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and invasions of privacy under the Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court ruled for the city defendants, upholding the testing policy and entering judgment against the plaintiff. The core reasoning was that firefighters and paramedics are high-risk government employees with elevated chances of contracting or transmitting AIDS, making the testing reasonable under the circumstances, unlike testing of the general public or other employees; the opinion emphasized the epidemic context, the limited scope of the holding, and precedents for mandatory testing of similar groups such as military personnel.
civil rightslabor & employmenthealthcare
Alexander v. Local 496, Laborers International Union of North America
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1991-12-10 · cited 6×
This case was a class action civil rights suit brought by black applicants who alleged that Local 496 of the Laborers International Union, its business manager, and the International Union denied them union membership and job referrals at the Perry Nuclear Plant on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court found all defendants liable, concluding that facially neutral policies such as the requirement that applicants already be “in the calling” (i.e., employed) produced a disparate impact on black workers and formed part of a pattern or practice of disparate treatment, as shown by statistical underrepresentation of black members relative to the relevant labor pool. The International Union was held accountable both for acquiescing in the local’s discriminatory conduct and for breaching an affirmative duty to intervene, given its longstanding knowledge of complaints and its role in the governing labor contracts. The case was bifurcated, with liability resolved and the issue of damages reserved for a later proceeding.
civil rightslabor & employment
F. Buddie Contracting Co. v. City of Elyria, Ohio
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1991-09-17 · cited 4×
The case involved a challenge by F. Buddie Contracting Co., the lowest bidder on a city road repair project, to the City of Elyria's Minority Business Enterprise Ordinance (Chapter 168), which required compliance with MBE and WBE subcontractor quotas or goals for public contracts. The plaintiff alleged that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the city had not made legislative findings of past or present discrimination to justify the program and had denied the contract solely for noncompliance with the quotas. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on all counts, declared the ordinance unconstitutional as applied and on its face, and permanently enjoined its enforcement in its current form. The core reasoning was that the program failed to satisfy the requirements established in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., including findings of discrimination, narrow tailoring, objective qualification criteria, and a time limitation, and instead improperly relied on the earlier decision in Fullilove v. Klutznick.
civil rightsbusiness & regulatory
INTERN. UNION, UNITED AUTO. v. Midland Steel Prod.
District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1991-08-14
This case involved a class action by the United Auto Workers and individual employees against Midland Steel Products, alleging that the company discharged about 290 union workers to interfere with their ERISA-protected medical and life insurance benefits. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and other relief, requesting a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The court had previously denied the defendants' motion to strike the jury demand, holding that ERISA section 502(a) permits legal remedies in mixed cases and that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury for claims seeking compensatory damages. The defendants then moved to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), arguing it would avoid the expense of a jury trial. The court denied the motion, finding no substantial grounds for differing opinions that would warrant immediate review, noting that the case was ready for trial and that allowing an appeal would cause unnecessary delay.
labor & employmentprocedure