District Court, W.D. Tennessee — appointed by George H.W. Bush
Neal v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY
District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2011-09-29 · cited 2×
In this employment case, a Black female employee sued her employer, Shelby County Government Community Services Agency, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for being denied a promotion to Counselor C in favor of a less experienced white applicant in 2004, along with subsequent retaliatory harassment. After the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding the race discrimination claims, the defendant moved to dismiss them. The court granted the motion, holding that the EEOC charge did not check the box for racial discrimination and was untimely under the 300-day filing requirement, that the alleged harassing incidents were not shown to be racially motivated or timely, and that a state actor cannot be sued directly under § 1981 in the Sixth Circuit.
civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mid-American Specialties, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2011-03-24 · cited 2×
This case arose from claims by the EEOC that Mid-American Specialties, Inc. violated Title VII by subjecting three female employees to a hostile work environment based on sex and by retaliating against two of them for reporting the harassment. A jury found the company liable and awarded substantial compensatory, back-pay, and punitive damages. The EEOC then sought a permanent injunction that would broadly prohibit future discrimination and retaliation, require distribution of policies, mandate employee notices, and impose training and reporting requirements. The court granted the motion in part, ordering specific relief such as posting a detailed notice to employees for three years, distributing anti-retaliation policies, and requiring annual training and complaint reporting, while denying the broadest "obey the law" provisions as insufficiently specific under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). The court reasoned that injunctive relief was warranted given the jury's findings and the continued employment of the accused supervisors, but that any injunction must describe prohibited acts with reasonable particularity.
labor & employmentcivil rights
Blackburn v. Shelby County
District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2011-02-18 · cited 28×
This case involved a female sergeant employed by the Shelby County Sheriff's Office who brought claims of sex discrimination, age discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Title VII, the ADEA, the THRA, and state tort law, based on alleged denials of enforcement duties, transfers, comments about her age and sex, and other workplace conduct spanning multiple EEOC charges. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. It determined that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie cases for discrimination or retaliation due to lack of adverse employment actions or evidence of similarly situated comparators, that the alleged harassment was neither severe nor pervasive, and that many incidents were time-barred or unsupported. The motion to strike was denied as moot.
labor & employmentcivil rights
Lindberg v. UHS OF LAKESIDE, LLC
District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2011-01-21 · cited 26×
This case involves a proposed collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) brought by former hourly employees of behavioral health facilities operated by UHS of Lakeside, LLC, Community Behavioral Health, LLC, and Universal Health Services. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the FLSA by automatically deducting 30 minutes for unpaid meal breaks from all shifts of six hours or more, even when employees were required to work through those breaks due to patient care demands and staffing issues, resulting in uncompensated overtime. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and authorized notice to all non-exempt employees who worked at the facilities in the past three years. Applying the lenient standard at the initial certification stage, the court found that the plaintiffs had made a sufficient showing that they and the putative class members were similarly situated based on the common meal-break deduction policy. The court noted that defendants' arguments regarding differences among employers and employees were better addressed at the decertification or summary judgment stage.
labor & employmentprocedure
Raeth v. National City Bank
District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2010-11-12 · cited 1×
This case was a putative class action by a homeowner against National City Bank challenging the bank's suspension of his home equity line of credit after an automated valuation model indicated a decline in the home's value from $354,800 to $332,100. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z for failing to consider present equity, lacking a sufficient factual basis, providing deficient notice, and requiring upfront appraisal fees, along with state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss all claims. It reasoned under the Iqbal and Twombly plausibility standard that TILA and Regulation Z permit suspension based on a significant decline in property value without separately determining equity levels or providing additional disclosures, that the bank's actions complied with official interpretations of the statute, and that the state claims either depended on the dismissed federal claims or were not plausibly alleged.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Pruett v. SKOUTERIS
District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2010-09-27 · cited 2×
This case involves a dispute over an attorney's handling of a client's settlement proceeds from an automobile accident claim in which the plaintiff was injured and her fiancé was killed. The defendant attorney settled the claim for $197,480 without the plaintiff's authorization or knowledge, deposited the funds, and then disbursed them to the plaintiff in small monthly amounts while falsely claiming to have paid medical providers and failing to provide a full accounting or the remaining balance despite repeated requests. After the plaintiff obtained new counsel who demanded records, the court reviewed evidence of the defendant's misconduct on a motion for default judgment. The court adopted in part and rejected in part the magistrate judge's report, entered final default judgment awarding the plaintiff $93,017.55 in compensatory damages plus $300,000 in punitive damages, along with prejudgment interest, costs, and a writ for records, based on findings that the defendant wrongfully withheld funds, deceived the vulnerable plaintiff, and violated professional conduct rules.
torts & liabilityprocedure