District Court, C.D. Illinois — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Whitlow v. Martin
District Court, C.D. Illinois · 2010-06-15
In Whitlow v. Martin, sixteen former Illinois Department of Transportation employees who identified as Republicans sued defendants including Timothy Martin, alleging that their layoffs violated the First Amendment by targeting them based on political affiliation. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact about the reasons for the terminations. The court denied the motion, holding that evidence including overheard statements about firing Republicans and a database tracking state employees' voting records created factual disputes requiring trial. Applying precedents such as Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, the court found that political affiliation is generally impermissible for most state employment decisions and that the plaintiffs had shown sufficient evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment.
free speechcivil rightslabor & employment
Manuele v. City of Springfield, Ill.
District Court, C.D. Illinois · 2010-06-10 · cited 3×
In Manuele v. City of Springfield, several Public Works Department employees sued the City under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging they were entitled to overtime pay for attending required 15-minute pre-shift meetings between 2003 and 2007 that caused them to exceed 40 hours per week. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the employees were exempt from overtime as salaried administrative or executive workers and that injunctive relief was unavailable. The court granted summary judgment to the City on the claims for injunctive relief, reasoning that only the Secretary of Labor may seek such relief under the FLSA. It denied summary judgment on the overtime and exemption issues, finding a genuine dispute of material fact over whether certain plaintiffs were paid on a salary basis rather than hourly, which prevented a determination that they qualified for the exemptions. The court noted that job titles alone do not control and that evidence such as time cards and compensatory time raised triable questions.
labor & employment
Nieman v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
District Court, C.D. Illinois · 2010-04-08 · cited 4×
In Nieman v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, the plaintiff, a former claims director, sued Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, its affiliate Allied Mutual Insurance Company, and numerous individual defendants, alleging that he faced retaliation and discrimination after complaining about alleged manipulation of insurance reserves and related promotion decisions. His claims included violations of Title VII for retaliation and race and sex discrimination, Section 1981, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, various state civil rights and whistleblower laws, and common-law tort and contract claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing Title VII claims for retaliation, race discrimination, and sex discrimination to proceed against Nationwide and Section 1981 claims against Nationwide and three individual defendants while dismissing all claims against Allied and most individuals. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Indiana law, that Illinois and Michigan civil rights statutes did not apply, and that other claims were either preempted or insufficiently pleaded, while finding the surviving federal claims adequately stated under the relevant standards.
civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure
Braucher Ex Rel. Braucher v. Swagat Group, LLC
District Court, C.D. Illinois · 2010-03-19 · cited 5×
This case involved claims by plaintiffs Bonnie Leiser and Marjorie Braucher (on behalf of Georgia Braucher, who died) against hotel franchisees (Swagat Group, LLC and related individuals) and franchisor Choice Hotels after the two women contracted Legionnaires' disease from bacteria in the Comfort Inn's pool, spa, and water systems during stays in 2006. The court addressed multiple motions for summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony. It granted summary judgment to Choice Hotels on all claims, ruling that the franchise agreement established the Swagat defendants as independent contractors with no agency relationship, and Choice's quality assurance inspections were limited to brand standards rather than creating control over daily operations or safety compliance. Partial summary judgment was granted to some individual Swagat defendants on certain theories of liability but denied as to others, allowing claims against the LLC and remaining defendants to proceed based on their direct operation of the hotel.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
United States v. Dish Network, L.L.C.
District Court, C.D. Illinois · 2009-11-04 · cited 13×
The case involved claims by the United States and several state attorneys general that Dish Network and its authorized dealers violated federal Telemarketing Sales Rules and FCC regulations under the FTC Act and TCPA by making calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, abandoning calls, and using prerecorded sales messages, as well as related state law violations. The court denied Dish Network's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. It reasoned that the complaint's allegations, accepted as true, plausibly stated claims for relief, that sellers could be held liable for causing or assisting dealers' violations, that the TCPA did not preempt the state laws at issue, and that the federal rules applied to the conduct described.
business & regulatory
Richardson v. Carver
District Court, C.D. Illinois · 2009-10-07 · cited 1×
In Richardson v. Carver, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee sued to deny the debtor a discharge, claiming he fraudulently transferred sale proceeds from his home to hinder creditors and made false statements under oath about his 2007 income and other matters in violation of Bankruptcy Code §§ 727(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4)(A). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling in favor of the debtor on the fraudulent transfer claim but reversed on the false statements claim. It held that the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding the debtor's repeated sworn denials of any 2007 income were not intentional, as the evidence showed recklessness in maintaining the falsehood even after the trustee highlighted it. The case was remanded for a determination of whether those false statements were material.
business & regulatoryprocedure