In Ashley v. Southern Tool Inc., plaintiff Bettye Jane Ashley, a 61-year-old Caucasian female employee, sued her employer under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, claiming she was treated less favorably than younger male and female employees of Caucasian and African-American ethnicity in the enforcement of the company's No-Fault Attendance Policy, including denial of her appeal after accruing six occurrences leading to termination. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that Ashley could not establish a prima facie case of race, sex, or age discrimination because the evidence showed the policy and appeals process were applied consistently to all employees, with no proof of more favorable treatment for similarly situated comparators, and she failed to show the employer's nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual.
The case concerned consolidated appeals by creditors challenging bankruptcy court rulings in adversary proceedings brought by Chapter 13 debtors, including a putative class action, alleging that certain fees and charges in proofs of claim violated provisions of the Bankruptcy Code such as 11 U.S.C. §§ 506(b) and 362. The bankruptcy court denied motions to dismiss and held that it possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the class claims as core proceedings arising under the Code pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b) and 1334(b). On appeal, the district court reviewed the jurisdictional issues de novo, rejecting arguments that the claims required an impact on the debtor's estate or were limited to the debtor's home court under § 1334(e), and concluded that jurisdiction existed because the claims invoked rights specifically created by the Bankruptcy Code without needing to meet "related to" standards applicable to non-core matters.
The case involves Randy Fry's appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits, based on his claimed disability from bilateral lateral epicondylitis causing severe arm pain that prevented him from working. An ALJ found Fry severely impaired but not disabled after determining he retained the residual functional capacity for a limited range of light work, a finding the Appeals Council upheld even after receiving new evidence. The district court remanded the case to the Commissioner, holding that the Appeals Council failed to properly consider the claimant's new affidavit from his treating physician, which was material and could have changed the outcome regarding the claimant's ability to work.
The case arose when the United States sued several manufacturers of silicone gel breast implants (the RSP Defendants) and the escrow agent for the global settlement fund in the multidistrict products liability litigation (MDL 926), seeking reimbursement for Medicare payments made to implant recipients. The defendants and escrow agent moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motions in full. It held that the applicable Medicare Secondary Payer and Medicare Recovery Act provisions did not authorize recovery from the escrow agent or settlement fund under the facts alleged, because the agent was a neutral intermediary without independent liability and the statutory prerequisites for direct action against such a custodian were not met.
This case involved employees of a community action committee who purchased life insurance through their employer's defined contribution plan and later sued the insurer and its agent in Alabama state court, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and related claims based on representations that the policy was a tax-free retirement plan providing death and disability benefits. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the claims were completely preempted by ERISA because the policy was part of an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan. Plaintiffs moved to remand, contending that no ERISA plan existed or that key preemption elements were missing. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the employer's prototype plan qualified as an ERISA plan, the plaintiffs had standing, the defendants were ERISA entities, and the relief sought was of the type available under ERISA, triggering super preemption and federal question jurisdiction.
This case concerned claims by a class of male employees against American Cast Iron Pipe Company alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and ERISA, based on the exclusion of nonresident children from the company's medical and dental benefits plan that was provided to children of female employees. Multiple related complaints were filed and consolidated over years of litigation that included class certification disputes, summary judgment motions, appeals to the Eleventh Circuit, and intervention by the EEOC. The parties ultimately reached a settlement embodied in a Consent Decree, which the court approved after finding it fair, adequate, and reasonable under Rule 23, supported by the uncertainties of further litigation, the extent of discovery, and the absence of objections to attorney fees. The decree resolved all outstanding issues in the consolidated actions.