In Brubaker v. Barrett, the plaintiff sued her former employer Combined Insurance, its affiliate AON, and her supervisor for state-law claims including sexual harassment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, constructive discharge, invasion of privacy, and related torts, alleging that the supervisor secretly recorded her undressing in a hotel room during a work conference, leading to her resignation. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss based on an arbitration agreement the plaintiff signed in 2008 as part of her employment documents with ACE (Combined Insurance's parent), which required arbitration of all employment-related legal claims against the company and its affiliates. The court granted the motion in part, holding the agreement enforceable due to mutual assent and consideration, and ruling that the claims against the corporate defendants fell within its scope as employment-related disputes, but denied arbitration as to the individual supervisor; it stayed rather than dismissed the arbitrable claims to align with the Federal Arbitration Act. The core reasoning focused on the broad language of the agreement covering statutory and common-law claims arising from employment and the incident's connection to a work event.
The case involved a Title VII claim by Kimberly Crider, a Seventh Day Adventist hired as a Coordinator in the University of Tennessee's Programs Abroad Office, who alleged that the University failed to accommodate her religious observance of the Sabbath by refusing to exempt her from monitoring an emergency cell phone and performing other weekend duties from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. After exploring possible accommodations with Crider and her coworkers, the University concluded that none were feasible without imposing undue hardship and terminated her employment in June 2008. The court granted the University's motion for summary judgment, finding that Crider had established a prima facie case but that all proposed accommodations would require more than a de minimis cost, force other employees to shoulder additional burdens permanently, or result in unequal treatment based on religion, which Title VII does not require. The opinion emphasized that employers have no duty to accommodate when an employee will not cooperate or when every option creates undue hardship, leading to dismissal of the remaining claim.
In Roopchan v. ADT Security Systems, Inc., the owner of a convenience store sued ADT after a burglary and truck damage to his premises, claiming the security system was inadequate because it lacked cellular backup and alleging intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The contracts signed in 2006 and 2007 contained exculpatory clauses requiring the plaintiff to look to his insurance for any losses and limiting ADT's liability. The court granted ADT's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding no genuine issue of material fact on the misrepresentation and TCPA claims and holding that the exculpatory clauses barred the remaining claims.
In Maness v. Boston Scientific, the plaintiff sued manufacturers and a sales representative for injuries allegedly caused by an implanted spinal cord stimulation device that was later subject to a recall, bringing state-law product liability claims including negligence, strict liability, and failure to warn. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to meet federal pleading standards. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the allegations did not contain enough factual content to state plausible claims under the Twombly and Iqbal standards, but allowed the plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint.
The case involved a contract dispute over gemstone purchases between a Tennessee corporation and its Thai subsidiary as plaintiffs and several Hong Kong and Thai defendants. After the defendants removed the action from Tennessee state court to federal court on grounds of diversity and federal question jurisdiction under the CISG treaty, the plaintiffs moved to remand. The court granted the motion and remanded the case, holding that diversity jurisdiction was absent because U.S. citizens were not present on both sides and foreign parties appeared on both sides of the dispute. It further held that federal question jurisdiction did not exist because Hong Kong and Thailand are not Contracting States under the CISG, rendering the treaty inapplicable.
In United States v. Kernell, the defendant was tried on charges of identity theft, wire fraud, unauthorized computer access in furtherance of other violations, and destruction or alteration of records to obstruct an investigation. The jury convicted him on a lesser-included offense of unauthorized access and on the obstruction count, acquitted him of wire fraud, and deadlocked on identity theft, leading to a mistrial on that count. The defendant then moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, arguing insufficient evidence, and for arrest of judgment under Rule 34, arguing that the indictment failed to charge an offense in the obstruction count. The court denied both motions, holding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supported the convictions and that the indictment properly charged the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 without regard to trial evidence.
