In Rodgers v. HY-VEE, INC., plaintiff Cindy Rodgers alleged that her supervisor at a Hy-Vee grocery store created a hostile work environment through repeated sexual comments, advances, and intimidating behavior, leading her to resign after about four months on the job. The defendant employer moved for summary judgment on the Title VII claim, asserting that it maintained anti-harassment policies, acted promptly by investigating and firing the supervisor once notified, and thus qualified for the Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense. The court found material questions of fact remained, particularly whether the employer had adequately monitored the supervisor or exercised reasonable care to prevent the harassment before the plaintiff's report, and therefore denied summary judgment. The opinion analyzes both vicarious liability and direct negligence theories but focuses on the affirmative defense elements.
This case concerned the government's civil forfeiture action against 627 firearms seized from Bela Hummel after ATF agents searched his Iowa property pursuant to a warrant. Hummel had pleaded guilty to willfully dealing firearms without a federal license in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), and the parties disputed how many of the seized guns were "involved in" the offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(d)(1) and 983, whether forfeiture would be an excessive fine, and whether Hummel could transfer ownership of any non-forfeited guns despite his status as a convicted felon barred from possessing firearms. The court reviewed evidence of Hummel's repeated purchases and sales at gun shows over many years, analyzed the statutory forfeiture standards, and addressed whether allowing Hummel to designate a transferee would amount to prohibited constructive possession.
In this case, plaintiff Clayton Heyne sued his employer HGI-Lakeside, Inc. after the casino placed him on medical leave following his request for accommodations due to chronic back pain that limited his ability to stand for full shifts. Heyne alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It held that Heyne failed to show he was disabled under the ADA because his back condition did not substantially limit a major life activity, that there was no evidence the employer regarded him as disabled, and that the placement on leave did not constitute actionable retaliation under either statute.
The case involved a product liability lawsuit brought by Marty Cummings against Deere & Company after his 2004 John Deere combine harvester was destroyed by fire while harvesting soybeans, alleging defects in the fuel tank related to electrostatic discharge and breach of warranty. The court addressed Deere's motions to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert Dr. Charles Roberts, to strike portions of his rebuttal disclosure, and for summary judgment. The court excluded Dr. Roberts' opinions on the fire's cause under Daubert standards, finding they lacked reliable methodology, were not supported by case-specific testing or data, and instead relied on analysis from unrelated Kansas litigation and selective DTAC reports. Without admissible expert evidence to establish a product defect, the court granted summary judgment to Deere on both claims, noting that Iowa warranty liability also requires proof of a defect.
This case involves claims by PFS Distribution Company and its parent against former general manager Darrell Raduechel and sales manager Barry Spain, who resigned in 2004 and formed a competing food distribution business called D&B Solutions with financing from MidWestOne Bank and accounting help from TD&T; the suit alleges misappropriation of confidential customer, sales, and profit data from the Oskaloosa facility. The district court addressed four cross-motions for summary judgment (or partial summary judgment) on issues including trade-secret misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and related claims. The court found genuine factual disputes over the confidentiality of the information and the defendants' knowledge and use of it, denied full summary judgment to most parties, noted a lack of evidence against bank officer Hicks personally, and clarified that certain counts such as copyright infringement remained for trial.
The case involved a lawsuit by Michael Chapman, a former Union Pacific Railroad employee, against LabOne, a certified drug-testing laboratory, arising from a 1999 random urine test that LabOne reported as 'substituted' and inconsistent with normal human urine, resulting in Chapman's termination. Chapman alleged improper handling and testing of his sample. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after striking portions of the plaintiff's expert testimony as unreliable and outside the expert's report, finding no admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on the claims. It also addressed related motions to strike and objections but concluded the record did not support liability.