The case involved plaintiff Robert Donaldson, who obtained a $138,000 mortgage loan in 2007 secured by a deed of trust on Nashville property, made payments until February 2009, and then sued BAC Home Loans Servicing (successor to Countrywide) after it began servicing the loan. Donaldson asserted claims for breach of contract, money had and received (unjust enrichment), and fraud, alleging issues with the original loan documents, the defendant's right to collect, and lack of proper disclosures. The court granted BAC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, holding that there were no genuine disputes of material fact because Donaldson provided no evidence that BAC or its predecessors breached any contract, were unjustly enriched, or made fraudulent representations. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report with modifications and found the evidence one-sided in favor of the defendant on all claims.
In McMillion v. Metropolitan Government, plaintiff Beverly Burns McMillion, a former MAC employee, sued after her 2009 termination in a reduction in force, alleging First Amendment retaliation for a 2008 internal grievance over an accounting error that caused her to be placed on unpaid leave status and lose accrual of additional leave time, as well as age discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the First Amendment claim, finding that the grievance addressed only internal personnel and leave policy matters rather than a public concern. Because the speech did not qualify for First Amendment protection under Connick v. Myers and related Sixth Circuit precedent, the court did not reach causation or other elements of the retaliation claim. The court then dismissed the state-law age discrimination claim without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) after declining supplemental jurisdiction once the sole federal claim was resolved.
This case involved father-and-son employees Cruz and Dustin Ayala suing their former employer Summit Constructors under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act for alleged hostile work environment harassment based on national origin and race, as well as retaliation after they raised concerns. After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiffs did not prove their hostile work environment claims or Dustin's retaliation claim due to insufficient credible evidence of pervasive slurs or adverse actions tied to protected activity. However, the court ruled for Cruz on his retaliation claim, determining that Summit unlawfully refused to rehire him after he filed an EEOC charge, and awarded him $27,113.20 in damages without punitive damages because the decision was not shown to involve malice or reckless indifference. The core reasoning centered on credibility assessments of witness testimony regarding the frequency and occurrence of discriminatory conduct versus company policies and responses.
This case involved a claim under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) brought by the executor of the estate of Jason Ashley Burd against Lebanon HMA, Inc. d/b/a University Medical Center. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital failed to provide an appropriate medical screening and stabilization during two emergency room visits on March 22, 2008, after Burd's suicide attempt, possibly due to his lack of insurance, and that he was discharged before committing suicide the next day. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff provided no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether hospital staff had actual knowledge of an emergency medical condition or acted with an improper motive, distinguishing the claims from EMTALA violations and aligning them instead with potential medical malpractice.
In this case, plaintiff Teddy Hutchison sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that police officers violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights during a 2008 traffic stop by surrounding his vehicle with guns drawn, ordering him out without allowing use of his crutches due to his prosthetic leg, and causing him to fall and injure his back, all without finding contraband or issuing citations. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim against the Metropolitan Government. The core reasoning was that the amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim for municipal liability under Monell because it recited only legal conclusions about an official policy, custom, or practice of improper stops and inadequate training regarding disabilities, without pleading any supporting facts, as required by the plausibility standard from Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
This case is a Title VII action brought by the EEOC and intervenor plaintiff Carlota Freemen against Whirlpool Corporation alleging sexual and racial hostile work environment harassment by a coworker that caused Freemen PTSD, emotional distress, and economic harm. The defendant moved to strike evidence supporting lost pay damages and the report and testimony of the plaintiffs' economics expert Dr. Mark Cohen. The court denied both motions, holding that the complaints sufficiently alleged facts supporting a constructive discharge claim under liberal notice pleading standards to permit front and back pay, and that Dr. Cohen's testimony and calculations on lost pay, benefits, and future medical costs were sufficiently reliable based on the record and his expertise.
